A Philosophical Review of Nature's and Animal Rights

A Philosophical Review of Nature
Pages 6 (1506 words)
Download 0
Running Head: Environmental Ethics A Philosophical Review of Nature’s and Animal Rights Case Analyses Name Course Title Name of Professor Date of Submission Question 1 As stated by Gary Varner, biological interest has been defined by Feinberg (1974) as “an interest, however the concept is finally to be analyzed, presupposes at least rudimentary cognitive equipment.


In contrast, Tom Regan disputes that there is a difference between ‘having an interest in something’ and ‘taking an interest in it’ (Varner, 1998, 55), which then implies that domestic species, being mindless species, have innate biological interests. Regan thus defined biological interest in this way: “the two senses really are logically distinct: A being can be interested in something that is not in his interests, and something may be in a being’s interest despite the fact that he is not interested in” (Varner, 1998, 55). This means that domestic species, having no conscious desires in any way, have biological interest of their own. Regan added that plants and objects can reasonably be thought to have biological interests, since both have intrinsic values in their own breed. On the other hand, Gary Varner (1994) argues that if all living things have biological interests, then it is implausible to prevent spoiling countless biological interests of others. Varner cited John Passmore’s passage to define biological interest: “the Jainist principle [of avoiding harm to all living things]… is far too strong. This is the more obvious now that we are aware of the minute living organisms which everywhere surround us. In breathing, in drinking, in eating, in excreting, we kill. ...
Download paper
Not exactly what you need?