Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay in Animal Rights
topic on animal rights
Essay in Animal Rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay in Animal Rights
The Moral Status of Animals The ethical treatment of animals is a hotly debated concept with many views on how animals should be treated varying across the spectrum. The primary concern behind the vast majority of these debates comes from how we view the moral standing of animals. Generally these can be grouped into three distinct categories, moral equality, direct but unequal, and finally indirect theories (Willson, 2015). In this paper I will attempt to briefly explore and give consideration to all of these areas and some of the differing viewpoints within them.
First let’s explore the indirect theory of morality. An indirect approach relies on denying animals the same or any moral status as humans are given. Emanuel Kant would have been
One such argument is against the species-norm account of species based moral standing. From the viewpoint of McMahan, a child born with anencephaly, absence of a major portion of the brain, is not in fact experiencing misfortune. He argues that no moral compensation is required due to the fact that this being has no capacity for well-being to begin with (McMahan, 1996). This goes against the species-norm account, which would require the same standing regardless of condition, given to all members of a species.
The final account of animals’ moral standing is that of the equal theory. The equal theory puts all animals as both having moral status and being on the same level as humans are. So as such any duties or obligations that someone has to another person, they will likewise have to all animals (Willson, 2015). A key figure in the promotion of equality between animals and humans is Peter Singer. Singers approach to philosophy is through the utilitarian school, and proposes that the greatest good of the greatest number is the only measure of ethical
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.
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
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.
He begins his statements by outlining the conditions on which we treat animals. From a Kantian perspective, he explains that our most direct contact with an animal is when we consume them.
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.
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
... 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.
Secondly, Regan introduces a second view, known as contractarianism. Although he suggests many flaws in this view, he also agrees that it somewhat supports his view of inherent value. This particular view identifies that since humans have the capability of understanding rules, they are capable of accepting and practising moral doings, and avoiding immoral acts. Thus, humans beings have every right to be treated with respect. Regan explains that this is problematic, because children are not necessarily capable of the same level of thinking as adults, meaning that the view mentioned above cannot be applied. Inspite of this, children do have every right to have protection, simply because they have parents or guardians that take on this so called "contract". Regan argues that if this is the case with children, then why cannot animals also have a contract?, as they do not also have the same level of thinking as an average adult. Nonetheles...
Singer’s argument is certainly persuasive. However, his argument only goes so far as to say that speciesism is arbitrary and we should replace one arbitrary measure with another – that of sentience. I think that more needs to be done to show why sentience, not any other quality, should be the defining characteristic for moral consideration.
Nussbaum, MC 2006, ‘The moral status of animals’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 3, pp. 1-6.
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 ...
Animals are so often forgotten when it comes to the many different levels of basic rights. No, they can’t talk, or get a job, nor can they contribute to society the way humans can. Yet they hold a special place in their owners’ hearts, they can without a doubt feel, show their different emotions, and they can most definitely love. In recent years there has been a massive increase in animal rights awareness, leading to a better understanding and knowledge in the subject of the humane treatment of animals. Where do humans draw the line between the concern of equality, and simple survival?
“Man is the highest rated animal, at least among all the animals who returned the questionnaire (Brault, 2009).” For years humans have been using animals for experimentation, food, clothing, sport and entertainment, manual labor, and let us not forget man’s best friend. The unethical treatment of animals can best be resolved by deontology contrasted with ethical egoism.
Cavalieri , Paola. The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.