Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the ethics of animal rights
topic on animal rights
animal ethical issue
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the ethics of animal rights
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?
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.
The essay “Ill-gotten Gains” first appeared in a book called ‘Health Care Ethics’ and was written by Tom Regan who is a renowned philosopher, author and animal rights advocate. The essay appeared again in Tom Regan’s best known book called ‘The Case for Animal Rights’ which states Regan’s beliefs regarding animal rights and provides a sound argument as to why animals should not be exploited for our own gain. Tom Regan believes all animal use that benefits humans is morally unacceptable including for food, entertainment, labour, experiments and research. “Ill-gotten Gains” argues that to be on the right moral path we need to view all individuals with inherent value as a ‘subject of a life’. Regan argues that any practice in which a ‘subject of a life’ is used as a resource is immoral, not because of emotion, but because of reason. Any individual with a sense of a future, awareness and purpose is considered to be a ‘subject of a life’ and has equal inherent value. Regan also takes time to explore the argument that humans have souls while animals do not.
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
What do we, as humans have to do in order to give nonhuman animals the proper treatment and equal moral consideration as we owe for other humans? Some, such as Jeremy Bentham would address that, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (99). Other moral philosophers, like Henry Sidgwick, however reject the theory of utilitarianism thinking that is pleasure all that really matters and are consequences all that matters (111-112)? Humans use nonhuman animals for one purpose; pleasure from using their skins for luxury goods. In this paper, I will explain and examine what Jeremy Bentham is trying explain in his argument, and will attempt to show that his argument is a plausible one, by replying an objection against his utilitarian view.
Philosophers and scholars have long debated the human moral and ethical obligations towards non-human animals. The opposing paradigms of animal ethics a...
After reading the Ethics of What We Eat, one may conclude that there are two normative principles that can be applied when ruling the ethics behind our food (Utilitarianism and Kantianism). Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to reverse it. On the contrary, Kantianism does not concern itself with the consequences in considering what’s right or wrong. Instead, what’s right is not the maximization of happiness, but the morality of the actions that lead to such happiness. Because of these opposite ideologies, using animals for food, its environmental impact, and its impact on global poverty can be controversial.
An ongoing conflict among the human species is that of animal cruelty, whether it be by scientific experiments, tests, or research. I frequently wonder, do the individuals performing these atrocious tasks ask themselves if what he/she is doing is ethically correct? I believe that it is not right to treat animals in such an inhumane manner, but to treat them as our own kind, for they are clever, spirited beings. These helpless animals cannot defend themselves against abuse. In my opinion, it is morally appropriate to grant the same rights to animals as we human beings acquire and to end, or even just to minimize, animal cruelty in laboratories. Although there have been some benefits of animal testing for medical prospect, alternative methods exist and may even be more effective.
In his paper “All Animals Are Equal”, Philosopher Peter Singer argues for an egalitarian view on the concept treatment for animals. This paper will explore the implications of his argument and seek to counter an objection one may have to his view. His argument bases itself in the basic principle of equality. The argument is that the basic principle of equality states that the interest of all being must be taken into account and considered as equal to all other beings
As a human, we possess certain rights that protect us in society, however the animals we raise for food live under a much more complicated system that constantly changes. Americans have recently begun to protest animal treatment, especially in the meat industry. Many animal rights groups claim that animal farming is an inhuman practice that violates the rights of all living creatures. Farmers believe that animal right shouldn't change as any changes could cost them millions in new technology to safely care for the animals. The American farming industry poses several moral issues about animal rights which possess no easy solution, however new alternatives appear to have answers for this growing dilemma.
Singer makes a three-part argument for why “All Animals Are Equal”, or at the very least should be granted equal consideration. Firstly, he argues that, assuming all humans are awarded equal rights, there is no single characteristic apart from being human that grants them such rights. Secondly, he argues that awarding rights by virtue of humanity is arbitrary and speciesist. Lastly, he argues that sentience is the only characteristic that should be considered in terms of granting animal rights. This leads him to the conclusion that “if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration… The principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being”.
The biocentric worldview, which is life centered, focuses on the importance of all living things and considers all living things to have intrinsic value. I will be using Peter Singer’s ideas as the main focus explaining that animals share equal moral status with human beings and that therefore is unethical for people to kill and eat them. In “All Animals are Equal” by Peter Singer recognizes that there are differences between humans and other species. As he ...
Being human indicates the feeling of pain, pleasure, fear, and love; if animals can display these emotions, are they not human? The unethical treatment of animals is largely due to the fact that we as humans do not believe animals are sentient (capable of feeling pain or pleasure). Would it not be feeling pleasure when a kitten purrs when being stroked? How about when you beat a dog and they howl out; is that not pain?
The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: should non-human animals have rights? I firmly believe that non-human animals should be given rights, rights such as the right to freedom, the right to be treated with respect and care, and the right to not be exploited. Non-human animals are similar to humans in many ways and they should not be subjected to the unsanitary and crowded living conditions that factory farms and other forms of non-human animal mass production factories force them into.. They have families that they care for females bear their children just as humans do. Many human beings take think they have an inferior position over non-human animals and inflict extreme suffering upon them. I believe non-human animals should be given rights.
One of the greatest arguments against non human animals having rights is that they cannot speak for themselves, they cannot think and they are less human and so they can be created as such. There are flaws on this argument. Humans have an obligation to the society in a certain manor and this determines how they behave. From a young age, people are taught how to behave and act in a certain way and animal neglect and cruelty goes against the basic principles we are taught as children. Secondly, In addition, opponents argue that rights only belong to moral agents and that animals like moral urgency. This is absurd because some animals for example primates actually think very well and this should not be used against animals being given rights. Animals may not be having self awareness and are not able to communicate well but at least they inherently have rights just because they do exist as living things and they are able to feel pain and other emotions. Their ability to suffer and feel pain gives them a right not to be subj...
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we