Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights. Although human beings exploit animals for multiple different purposes, the use o... ... middle of paper ... ... Rights.” In In Defense of Animals. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1985. pp. 13-26. Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989. Rollin, Bernard E.. “The Ascent of Apes — Broadening the Moral Community”. In The Great Ape Project. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1993. pp.206-219. Singer, Peter. “All Animals Are Equal”. In Animal Liberation. New Jersey: 1989. pp. 148-162. Singer, Peter. "Animal Interests." The New York Review of Books, March 28, 1985, Vol. 32, No. 5. Taylor, Angus. Magpies, monkeys, and morals: what philosophers say about animal liberation. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 1999. Wilson , James G. S., “Rights”, Principles of Health Care Ethics, Second Edition, eds. R.E. Ashcroft, A. Dawson, H. Draper and J.R. McMillan. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2007. pp. 239.
Peter Singer’s arguments in Animal Liberation have often been misunderstood. The most mutual, and important, misunderstanding among professional thinkers consists in the belief that the moral argument advanced by Animal Liberation is created on utilitarianism, besides not, as is in fact the situation, on the belief of no maleficence. Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation is surely one of the most persuasive, powerful and efficient works of applied integrities ever printed. Since the publication of the first edition in April 5, 1973, Singer’s work has been spoken, and its main theses enthusiastically argued by others. In the essay Singer’s tone was very rational and patient,
...nimal rights yet I do question myself where to draw the line. I do not condone violence or harm against animals, yet I shudder at the thought of a mice plague and feel saddened by the extinction of our native animals by ‘feral’ or pest species. Is it right to kill one species to save another? I am appalled by the idea of ‘circus’ animals yet I will attend the horse races every summer for my entertainment. I think Tom Regan’s argument and reasoning for animal rights was extremely effective at making whoever is reading the essay question his or her own moral standards. Reading the essay made me delve into my own beliefs, morals and values which I think is incredibly important. To form new attitudes as a society it is important we start questioning how we view the lives of others, do we see animals as a resource to be exploited or as equals with rights just like we do?
As I have progressed through this class, my already strong interest in animal ethics has grown substantially. The animal narratives that we have read for this course and their discussion have prompted me to think more deeply about mankind’s treatment of our fellow animals, including how my actions impact Earth’s countless other creatures. It is all too easy to separate one’s ethical perspective and personal philosophy from one’s actions, and so after coming to the conclusion that meat was not something that was worth killing for to me, I became a vegetarian. The trigger for this change (one that I had attempted before, I might add) was in the many stories of animal narratives and their inseparable discussion of the morality in how we treat animals. I will discuss the messages and lessons that the readings have presented on animal ethics, particularly in The Island of Doctor Moreau, The Dead Body and the Living Brain, Rachel in Love, My Friend the Pig, and It Was a Different Day When They Killed the Pig. These stories are particularly relevant to the topic of animal ethics and what constitutes moral treatment of animals, each carrying important lessons on different facets the vast subject of animal ethics.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Defense of Animals. Ed. Peter Singer. New York:
---."The Theos-Rights of Animals." Animals and Christianity. Ed. A.Linzey et al. New York: Crossroad, 1990.
Singer, Peter. “The Case of Animal Liberation.” In Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, 8th edition,edited by Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn (New York: Oxford
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
Gedge, E., & Waluchow, W. (2012). Readings in health care ethics (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press.
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "’Rights- Based’ Approaches." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 23. Print.
The Case for Animal Rights. Routledge, London-New York, 1988. Regan T. The Struggle for Animal Rights. International Society for Animal Rights.
Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:
Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection. Throughout centuries, medical research has been conducted on animals.
Justifying the Killing of Animals for Research. Works Cited Missing Can killing animals for medical research, cosmetics, food and sport be? justifiable. What is the difference between a 'justifiable' For what reason can they be killed or should they not be? killed at all. Not killing animals at all would lead to overgrowth in population, which could cause damage to the environment.
Garrett, T. M., Baillie, H. W., & Garrett, R. M. (2010). Health care ethics: Principles and problems (5thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Waples KA, Stagoll CS. Ethical issues in the release of animals from captivity. Roundtable. 1997; 115-120.