College of Business Administration

Business Management and the Natural Environment

Discussion Questions for March 13, 1996:

ANIMAL RIGHTS

1) What constitutes moral considerability? One definition of moral considerability is as follows, "The moral status x has if, and only if (a) x has interests (a good of its own), (b) it would be prima facie wrong to frustrate xs interests (to harm x), and (c ) the wrongness of frustrating xs interests is direct, that is, does not depend on how the interests of any other being are affected."

2) Are animals morally considerable? Why or why not?
If animals are morally considerable should that prevent us from exploiting them for our benefit? Is it OK to exploit an animal for research (cosmetic or medical)? What if it means an unpleasant life/death for the animal? Are we ever 'justified' in destroying animals for human good?

3) Is it wrong to exploit animals as performers, workers? What about domestication of animals as pets? Is it ever OK to kill an animal? For life, for food, sport?

4) Did the native Americans believe that animals were morally considerable?

5) Since we have all but eliminated the predators of species such as deer and elk, isnt it necessary to hunt as a means of population control?

6) Why do we accept the deaths of some animals and not others? Why do we choose to rally around certain animals and not others?

7) Do animals have territorial rights that supersede our own? What happens when those rights conflict with our preferences?

8) What are the implications of your view of animal rights on the conduct of business enterprise?

Return to Professor Dunn's home page.