This house believes that utilitarianism is a better approach than religious ethics in
matters of the environment.
First speech propUtil is more universal, everyone has access to it, people are more able to work
together that with religious ideas.
Util takes into account the long term- Mill qualitative pleasures- highest pleasure is
conserving the environment- most important factor is the long term effects
Even Bentham’s quantitative version depends on the long term effects EG running out
of fossil fuels.
First speech opThe value of potential is more important that Singer’s value of personhood
We have the potential of purpose after birth and contraception to have a meaningful
and purposeful life- including dominion and stewardship over the environment and
nature around us.
Anthropocentric view no exclusive to religious ethics- evolution into this species and
way of thinking- atheist lens
Stewardship religious belief heavily set in conserving God’s creatures and creations
Singer- Util equality between all races and levels of intelligence however when he
analyses personhood he denies animals being included due to their lack of self
awareness and consciousness
Second speech propAnimalistic Jeremy Bentham- saint of animal rights, he wants them to have a better
experience and life in the work living along side humans. Hedonic calculus- people
will be happier and healthier, pollution eradicated etc
Singer- Sentience anything that can experience pleasure or pain have an intrinsic
value in the world- reflects the way we treat them- vegetarianism like Singer, more
efficient and effect diet for humans- speciesism, dolphin abuse, deforestation. More
land less farming etc.
Second speech opReligious ethics holds a firmer and more strict set of rules as opposed to the
hedonistic self absorbed motives in other secular ethics.
Bible clearly states humans have clear dominion and stewardship over animals, one
cannot assume what Singer says as he refutes the bible with no evidence for his own
claims.
Kant or Aquinas- obvious and stronger rational capabilities therefore we should have
a better sense of decision making, whereas animals do not have this ability so we
should be able to choose for them as they cannot make better ones for themselves.
FRANICCIISSSSS- He argues that God is always evident in the word around us so
we need to take care of the world if we are to maintain this healthy loving relationship
Floor debateUtil does not in fact promote hedonistic views on the world but in following Mill you
seek to make the world better for everyone else for your own sake as well.
However, my greatest happiness everyone else around me has to be happy as well
Big steve(literally)- “ I see where you’re coming from” Is there not a problem with
catagorising animals with humans when there is such an obvious gap or difference in
intelligence. Humanistic terms to describe things we don’t truly understand- InstinctIntelligence- Jam – Fish
Conclusion? Animals do have potential to fulfil however not in the same framework
as humans due to the difference in Intelligibility.
FINISH HIM propUtil is better than religious ethicsUniversal
Long term
Consequences
Bentham Singer – important positive attitudes to animals for future
FINISH HIM opAnthroprocentric- humans interests above those of animals
Humans God divine soul
Dominion
Stewardship
Potential