2. Before this week’s lesson, I had never given any consideration to whether or not nonhuman animals had any moral standing. Prior to this class, if asked whether I thought they did or not, I most likely would have said that I do not feel they do; however, after serious consideration, I would now have to say that I do think that nonhuman animals have moral standing. At least some of them do.
I feel that some animals are more capable of acting morally than others. Many animals act simply out of natural impulse or training, but I do feel that there are some that are capable of doing something simply because they feel that it is right. For example, a lion acts out of innate instinct. For them, they do not kill a gazelle because it is moral or not, but because they are hungry and need to survive. They would not refuse to kill something because it was the wrong thing to do, but merely because there was no reason to.
An ape, on the other hand, I feel is capable of doing something because they have a sense that it is right. They may not be able to cognitively understand morality or ethical behavior, but they can do things to please others.
I am not sure exactly what sets some apart from others. I would say that as an animal
…show more content…
In this theory, lessening distress is ethically respectable, regardless of whether the suffering affects an adult, a child, or an animal. If it has the ability to feel pain, then it is due moral concern and needs to be considered in moral judgement making. The utilitarian view of moral agency assumes that all living creatures are due moral concern. Much like the views of Tom Regan’s Kantian account of animal rights, even those creatures without the ability to rationalize, such as a dog or cat, are afforded moral concern, as they are able to
Being able to think and reason should be a primary requirement for deserving dignity and respect. With no ability to think or reason how could an animal even understand that it is being treated differently than other animals. Fukuyama argues this point as well, “Human reason…is pervaded by emotions, and its functioning is in fact facilitated by the latter.” Clearly moral choice cannot exist with out reason but it can also be seen in other feelings such as pride, anger, and shame. Humans are conscious of their actions, in spite of acting on instinct as other animals do. Animals do not contemplate any deeper meaning of life or justify complex mathematical equations or even think about the question ‘why’; Humans, however, do think about those things. It is our conscious thought that sets us apart from any other animal in the world. Yes animals have perception and problem solving abilities, but unlike they are not able to understand complex knowledge based concepts, although they can solve problems within their normal parameters. Every animal on the planet should have the ability to solve problems but only to a certain extent, the extent of survival. When a situation becomes a matter of life or death animals must to be able to learn to live. Survival of the fittest has ultimately
1. The moral status of a creature is at the core of many issues in ethics. That is, in determining the moral status of the creature, we 're interested in what features a creature must have in order to be a morally relevant being (the kind of creature that has moral rights). Non-paradigmatic humans (i.e. infants, the cognitively disabled, etc.) and animals are importantly related in answering this question. Explain how non-paradigmatic humans and animals are related.
Expanding this thought process, the moral thinking that animal suffering should be included in rational decision making, past the realm of simply whether or not eating animals is ethically wrong leads us to other places where animal suffering may prove helpful to human life. This such place being examined is the medical experimentation field. Animals are being bred and created just to usually live short, painful lives. The animals are treated with varying degrees of concern for their well being. The mass suffering of the animals, not just for a short time remember usually the suffering lasts for years, in some eyes are seen is seen as a necessary evil on the road to medical and scientific development. This thought process falling from the hierarchy of species that has ingrained itself in human minds, the idea that humans are the most important and worthy, and thus any suffering of “inferior creatures” should not be considered when there is the possibility for advancement. This idea however is a flaw in moral
As I mentioned, I disagree with Carruthers reasoning. First and foremost, I think he contradicts himself. He says that animals are capable of suffering and feeling pain and emotions at a conscious level. So if they are capable of that, just as humans are, then why are they not considered rational agents with moral standing? They may be different from us in many ways, but if you break it down at a really basic level there are similarities. [Try to explain these similarities if
In the article, “An Animals Place” by Michael Pollan, he debates many controversial topics concerning humans and animal relationships towards cruelty and rights. Pollan begins with the discussion on whether or not animals have feelings or rights, even though the author agreed others had
To ascribe an entity with moral status ― whether an adult human, infant, foetus, or non-human animal ― is to declare that its treatment by other moral agents is mo...
...that human morals are a result of evolutionary tendencies. Based on his study in animal behavior, chimpanzees and bonobos in particular, he records evidence of moral behavior in chimpanzees. A significant point that de Waal makes if that animals have not developed to morality to the level exhibited in humans. They do however exhibit behaviors that make up the roots of morality. “Are animals moral? Let us simply say they occupy several floors of the tower of morality” (181). On the contrary, scientists against morality in animals argue that the alleged moral behaviors in animals are due to anthropomorphism and that morality results from religion. The question of morality in animals will most likely remain a complex and controversial question even with increase in research. This is because the argument is based on perspective which is influenced by cultural biases.
The fact that humans can take the lives of animals depicts their lack of moral value in relation to humans. However, if moral value is tied to moral rights, how does one compare the moral rights of humans and animals and why do humans possess more moral rights than nonhuman species? The main reason why some may say that humans possess more moral rights than animals is because they are not self aware and lack cognitive capacities. In Empty Cages: Animal Rights and Vivisection, Tom Regan states that those who deny animals of their rights usually emphasize on the uniqueness of human beings by stating that, "...we understand our own mortality and make moral choices. Other animals do none of these things. That is why we have rights and they do not (p. 100)." However, in The Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals by Charles Darwin, he states that animals, or at least nonhuman mammals, share the same cognitive abilities as humans. For instance, nonhuman mammals are able to "learn from experience, remember the past, anticipate the future (p.102)." Additionally, nonhuman mammals are also capable of experiencing fear, jealousy, and sadness. With these cognitive abilities, nonhuman mammals should then be qualified to obtain moral rights, which are
Primates are characterized by their unique characteristics, behaviors, and features. This is also why humans are considered to be a primate. With the human evolution researchers are able to find these common similarities. And even though chimpanzees have a very close body type and size they also have some differences. Researchers have found all these results by studying non-primates many different way in the non-primate own environment. With these results and studies it proves the facts that humans are indeed primates.
One day I got a full-blooded lab. When he was three, he had cancer and the first vet told us there was nothing they could do. We didn’t believe him and took him to another vet. This vet told us that he would amputate his toe and that he should recover fully. We went with what the second vet said and my dog is still living. If we had listened to the first vet, my dog would have died. I’m glad we listened to the second vet. Asking multiple opinions leads to better answers and can save someone’s life.
This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways. One such defense is that we are not morally wrong to prioritize our needs before the needs of nonhuman animals for “the members of any species may legitimately give their fellows more weight than they give members of other species (or at least more weight than a neutral view would grant them). Lions, too, if they were moral agents, could not then be criticized for putting other lions first” (Nozick, 79). This argument, that we naturally prefer our own kind, is based on the same fallacy used by racists while defending their intolerant beliefs and therefore should be shown to have no logical merit.
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
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”.
Nussbaum, MC 2006, ‘The moral status of animals’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 3, pp. 1-6.