Treatment of Non-Human Animals

2116 Words5 Pages

I will argue that Utilitarianism is a reasonable ethical theory to demonstrate we have a duty to accord moral consideration to sentient beings equally, in this case non-human animals. I will illustrate under Utilitarian criteria, that non-human animals are indeed sentient and that it is enough to count for moral standing. I will defend my argument in examples of practices commonly used in treating animals a resource, such as for food and in laboratory experiments. This will prove that any action that fails to treat animals as a being with moral standing violates an animal’s right, and therefore is morally impermissible.

I will begin by showing why Utilitarian Theory justifies my claim in providing a strong argument for non-human animals. The theory says an action is morally right if it brings about the most utility for everyone affected than any other alternative action, in other words, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number.” In terms of my argument for non-human animals, I should sum up all of the interests of all the groups affected (humans and non-human animals) by my actions and choose the one with the greatest net satisfaction. Utilitarianism is used in my argument because it entails some good ethical properties. It is said to be universal, in which it addresses the interests of all those affected, regardless of any trait or characteristic. Everyone should adopt this rule. This theory also addresses what is morally good in terms of welfare, or rather our satisfaction or dissatisfaction, such as an interest in a happy, pleasurable life. This theory is best known for being consequentialist because it tells us the right action is the one that maximizes utility, or produces the best consequences. And finally, utilitar...

... middle of paper ...

...ore, doesn’t add to greater utility. Ignoring the suffering of non-human animals is disregarding the fact they have moral consideration. Other moral theories, like Kantianism, believe we don’t have duties towards non-human animals, but have duties regarding them because being cruel would reflect upon us. I have reason to believe we have an obligation to them because we’re not just disrespecting ourselves; we’re wronging these non-human animals. There is an independent wrong being done when for example, a severely brain damaged child is being whipped or setting a cat of fire. When you pity an animal suffering, it’s because you have reason their conditions could be changed. Their cries are not lesser heard than a humans words. Another animal can obligate you in the exact same way as another person can. It is not whether they can reason, or talk, but can they suffer?

Open Document