PHIL10002 - Final Take Home Exam 2017

Part A- Question 1: Speciesism

(Word Count: 999)

In this paper, I will elucidate on Singer’s believe to why speciesism

is similar racism. I will then provide one objection against Singer’s view,
weighing each against the other before concluding. Speciesism is
discrimination on the basis of species groups and racism is discrimination
within the human group. In this discussion, the groups in question are
between the human and animal species. The principle of equal
consideration of interest is a theme used by Singer as a basic moral
principle to defend the treatment of animals by human species (Singer
2011, p. 48). This principle advocates a benchmark on how we treat other
humans despite their different characteristics in terms of skin colour,
ethnic background, intellect, country of origin and so on. However, this
principle should be extended to nonhuman animals as well (Singer 2011,
p. 48). I posit on this principle because all sentient beings, human and
animals share this planet and inevitably live in a symbiotic relationship.

Racism thrives due to the prejudice ingrained in humans with

regards to other race because they look different. Additionally, group of
people with limited intellectual abilities are exploited, disregarding their
interest for the benefit of another (Singer 2011, p. 49). History has shown
that the white slave owner’s prejudices to their African slaves are based
on the fact that the whites had superior weaponry knowhow and
psychological dominion, enabling them to capture and enslave the African
natives. Discrimination of intellectual capabilities and physical
appearances of the African natives seems to have played a major role
here. It provides the excuse that these people can be caged and treated
like animals without any repercussion what so ever. The stolen generation
of the aborigines where separated from their parent forcefully without any
regards, as if these peoples have no family values.

1
 PHIL10002 - Final Take Home Exam 2017

Singer draws a parallel between speciesism and racism with two

notions. First, on how one looks and second, the abilities one possess. He
then draws upon principle of equality to test his argument. Racists negate
the principle of equality when they give a greater precedence to their own
race when competing interests exits among different races (Singer 2011,
p. 50). They look different, deemed uneducated and hence less human.
This biasness is evident in the case of slavery where the suffering of the
Africans was not given the same weight as that of the Europeans (Singer
2011, p. 50). Slavery has been abolished in the eye of the law and
morally repugnant to most of us now. We are aghast, by the accounts of
what has been done to another human in the name of race dominance.
The Nazis have experimented on countless Jews during the German
occupations, killing and torture millions to maintain race dominance. The
extremely racist perception of one race superior to another race provides
the excuse to carry out these cruel and suffering acts.

We can now allude upon how animals are treated and see an
uncanny resemblance in human behaviour pattern analogous to racism.
Animals are deemed to be different in physical appearance and have little
cognitive ability and hence, we are allowed to kill them for food and
laboratory experimentations. We enslave them in cages and in zoos for
our entertainment. We separate calves from their mother to salvage more
milk. We don’t normally treat human as such now but continue to do so to
animals, because now we believe they don’t suffer as much as humans.
Lacking intelligence and resemblance to us, the ability to suffer becomes
the rights of animals to equal considerations (Singer 2011, p. 50).
Suffering then becomes the epitome of why we should not harm animals
and avoid speciesism and hence, “If a being suffers, there can be no
moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration”
(Singer 2011, p. 50). In light of this we should not kill animals for food
just to satisfy our taste when we can just as well live on plants and live a
healthy life (Singer 2011, p. 54). Just like human slaves, animals suffer.

2
 PHIL10002 - Final Take Home Exam 2017

One main objection to this view is that the exclusion of sentientism

does not support Singer’s view against speciesism (Kagan 2016, p. 8). It
claims that a high degree of intuitive support exists besides mere
prejudice and that only the interest of sentient being counts as opposed
to insentient being (Kagan 2016, p. 7). Through intuition, one can argue
various act can harm or benefit of, say to plants (Kagan 2016, p. 7).
Plants have an interest which is to be watered and die if they not (Kagan
2016, p. 7). To follow Singer’s view, we need to include the interest plant
lives as well and apply the same principle of equality. Plants look different
from animals and lacks intelligence other than to procreate through
pollination and grow towards water and sunlight. If this is the case, we
must not kill plants for food, confine them in pots, cross fertilise them as
entertainment and subject to genetic experimentations.

The sentientism argument is cogent and in congruence with Singer’s

view with its inclusion. However, the fact that we need to eat some form
of basic sustenance, like plants as a minimum to survive and live a
healthy life validate this as a major interest. This major interest overrides
that of the plant’s we kill (Singer 2011, p. 54). In addition, plants are not
put through prolonged torture compared to animal farming, whereby
animals are subjected to inhumane conditions (Singer 2011, p. 54).
Unsurprisingly, this raises the question of do plant suffers when killed.
Through inference we can compare the physiology of plants and other
vertebrates. The nervous system of vertebrates compared to ours, allow
us to deduce that animals feel pain (Singer 2011, p. 60). Plants lack this
anatomy and hence, can be deduced with high probability that plants
don’t feel pain like we do. In conclusion, based on these premises,
Singer’s view on speciesism seem to be the more convincing view and
speciesism still prevails, without sentientism.

3
 PHIL10002 - Final Take Home Exam 2017

References1

Kagan, S 2016, ‘What’s Wrong With Speciesism?’, Journal of Applied Philosophy,

33, pp. 1-21.

Singer, P 2011, ‘Equality for animals’, Ch. 3, Practical Ethics, 3rd edn, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 48-70

1
Harvard Referencing

4
 PHIL10002 - Final Take Home Exam 2017

Part C- Question 7: Coherentism

(Word Count: 999)

In this paper I will discuss if immediate sensory experience can

stand on its own in justifying believes or requires the support of other
beliefs forming a coherent belief system. I will also discuss what role
foundationalism can play in a coherent system as it can involve sensory
experience. Coherentism is a position in epistemology which
systematically inter connects epistemic justifiable true beliefs in a
mutually consistent manner (Elgin 2005, p. 156). Failure of one belief
does not necessarily debunk the belief system. This can be akin to a
floating raft where, if one of its parts fails, replacement or repairs can be
without sinking the raft (Sosa 1980, p. 6). According to foundationalism,
each piece of belief lies on a pyramid built on other beliefs resting finally
on a foundational self-justifying belief. If the foundational belief fails, then
the whole pyramid of beliefs collapses (Sosa 1980, p. 5).
Foundationalism advocates that a proposition is justifies on the basis of
another proposition and so on in a linear manner. Coherentism believes
this is misleading and suggests beliefs in proposition emerge from a
systematically interconnected constellation of beliefs (Elgin 2005, p. 156).

Elgin (2005, p. 157) provides an example where sense perception

alone is insufficient to justify a belief. Take a scenario of a book theft and
accounts of three separate witnesses who have no affiliation and an
unreliable track record for credibility. During each witness interview, we
would often use our sensory experience to assimilate the information. In
other word, we would listen to what was said, read their history and
visually observe body language. Taking these signs and their credibility
into considerations, we would come to the conclusion that the witnesses
are most likely lying. As it turned out they each had one common
account, that of seeing the thief with green spiky hair. If we were to
purely rely of our immediate sensory experience, we would fail to arrive

5
 PHIL10002 - Final Take Home Exam 2017

at the knowledge that the thief was a green spiked haired individual. The
only way we could have gained this truth is by crosschecking for common
theme and finding correlations within the right contexts. In this case
immediate sensory experience alone is insufficient for true justified
knowledge. I will then add testimony and analyticity to our immediate
sensory experience or perception.

Coherentism has no universally accepted criterion for coherence

other than as a minimum, “the components of a coherent account must
be mutually consistent, co-tenable and supportive” (Elgin 2005, p. 158).
Furthermore, coherence is a matter of degree as co-tenability and
supportiveness varies (Elgin 2005, p. 158). This brings us to the question
of how strong a foundation of co-tenability and supportiveness is required
to be justifiable. Do we rely on coherence of introspection and analyticity
alone and dismiss immediate sensory experience. Elgin (2005, pp. 159-
161) describes how a story from a novel would impress upon us and
engulf us into a world of fiction that seems all true. Looking up from the
book a taking in the scene around snaps one back into reality and truth.
Here, coherence of a very convincing storyline fails and our immediate
sensory experience prevails. The foundationalism seems to form an
undercurrent in this case with reference to perception, albeit perception
must also be supported by introspection and analyticity (Elgin 2005, p.
161). If perception alone overrides coherence then we decay into
foundationalism which is not the case here.

We can’t rely on isolated perception alone and need to leverage

collaborated testimony and analytics. Perceptions can be deceiving, for
example, peripheral visions may not be as reliable as central vision.
Colour blindness, tone deafness and myopic conditions are some of the
shortfalls that can cause discrepancies. These discrepancies can be
reduces through further understanding of the world and our adjusted
access to it (Elgin 2005, p. 162). In addition, analytics or scientific
evidence is also acceptable as epistemic truths, but keeping in mind that

6
 PHIL10002 - Final Take Home Exam 2017

we are only able to observe the outcome through our sense experience
and can be subject to the same shortfalls (Elgin 2005, p. 163). We can
also rely on testimony of others, but the truth factor is a degree and
dependents on how it coheres with other relevant beliefs. The credibility
of the testimony is very much dependent the track record, level of
expertise, competency (Elgin 2005, p. 164). Therefore, the combination
of our perception, other’s testimony, scientific analytics together and their
relationship with the world contributes to epistemic justified true belief.

So far I have discussed a single system of belief. There are also

clusters of beliefs that are isolated from one another (Elgin 2005, p. 164).
This is a big departure from foundationalism where belief hangs on a
single truth. Coherentism allows for clusters of belief system and an
example of this is the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. These
are two clusters of believe that have their own theoretical groundings and
accepted on their own, but have yet been unified. Another example is
mathematics beliefs which does not rely on empirical evidence and
astrology that requires empirical accounts, each are treated separately
within their context and belief (Elgin 2005, p. 165).

Objections to coherentism stems from the fact that coherence

between propositions that are many can sometimes lead to falsehood
(Elgin 2005, p. 165). An example is the notion of a flat world believed for
centuries. Here, foundationalism would play its role and is required. As an
example, theory of relativity and quantum mechanics would each have
their own foundational theory that justifies them to be true. Coherentism
is an evolving system, where it is repeatedly subjected to test of times
until it enjoys and equilibrium (Elgin 2005, p. 166). The beliefs and
deliverables can be akin to a form of weak foundational anchor tying each
disparate belief cluster to their centre of truth. However, they don’t return
to foundationalism as perception, testimony and analyticity get no truth
preference as long as they coherently lead to a justified true belief (Elgin
2005, p. 166).

7
 PHIL10002 - Final Take Home Exam 2017

References2

Elgin, C.Z 2005, ‘Non-foundationalist epistemology: Holism, Coherence,

and Tenability’ in M. Steup and E. Sosa (eds.), Contemporary Debates in
Epistemology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2005, pp. 156-167

Sosa, E 1980, ‘The Raft and the Pyramid: Coherence versus foundations
in the theory of knowledge’, Midwest studies in philosophy, 5(1), pp.3-26

2
Harvard Referencing