two questions based on a prompt

Learning Goal: I’m working on a philosophy multi-part question and need the explanation and answer to help me learn.

Respond to the prompt below in your own words. You must write more than 150 words, but you must not write more than 250 words. Do not waste time introducing the topic or explaining the basic concepts of the class. Respond to the prompt directly, completely, and succinctly.

Read page 147 of the textbook.

In class, we discussed questions similar to those raised on this page. Specifically, we discussed the issue of whether properties like sentience (ability to experience pleasure and pain) and advanced cognitive function (ability to act freely, deliberate rationally, etc.) are morally important properties. Sentience is unique to certain kinds of animals, and advanced cognitive function is unique to humans. However, cheetahs have a unique physiology which allows them to run faster than all other land animals, and there are electric fish that are capable of generating electricity, perceiving it, and communicating with it. Most people don’t think that unique traits like being the fastest land animal or generating electricity, however interesting, are morally important attributes.

Paul Taylor argued that being alive is the fundamental basis for moral consideration because it is on the basis of life, and correspondingly of health, that we have an objectively, scientifically defensible standard by which to judge whether the life of something is going well or poorly. Life is what makes having interests, i.e. intrinsically valuable needs and wants, possible in the first place. Taylor would argue that sentience and advanced cognitive function are interesting traits, but they are, ultimately, morally irrelevant, much like generating electricity or running fast.

Settling this question would get us started on settling all question in environmental ethics

1. Explain what, if anything, would make an attribute morally important. Is life such an attribute? What about sentience? Advanced cognitive functioning?
2. Other philosophers, e.g. Varner and Schmidtz, disagreed with Taylor that life is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable. Does your explanation vindicate Taylor, or does it vindicate his opponents? How and why?
   1. If your explanation vindicates Taylor, explain how his opponents might object to it. Then respond to their objection.
   2. If your explanation vindicates Taylor’s opponents, explain how Taylor might object to it. Then respond to his objection.