Philosophical Thinking: Humans and Animals

1856 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The relevance of ethics

Philosophical thinking is diverse on the subject of whether human beings should grant moral status to animals and moreover, what place animals should be given in an acceptable moral system. The proper treatment and direct moral concern of animals is viewed by some philosophers as being unwarranted, as the use of animals by human beings is considered part of the natural process of life. In contrast, other philosophers view animals in a similar light as human beings. These philosophers believe that animals have the capacity to feel both positive and negative emotions or sensations and can suffer in the same manners as human beings, and are therefore deserving of moral status. This essay will discuss these two conflicting views towards the proper treatment of animals, analyzing Aristotle’s views towards the moral status of animals and his belief that non-human animals do not possess the capacity to reason and therefore should be denied moral status. Furthermore, this essay will compare and contrast Aristotle’s views with those of Jeremy Bentham, defending Bentham’s view that the ability to suffer rather than the ability to reason should set the standard for who or what should acquire moral status.
It is evident that a natural hierarchy of living beings exists within our world, with human beings placed at the top. A living being’s capacity or ability to experience, do or understand something according to their specific nature determines where they will be categorized in this natural hierarchy. While beings such as plants, animals and humans all possess the capability of taking in nutrients to aid in growth and overall life, it is only animals and human beings that have the capacity to be consciously aware of differing life ex...

... middle of paper ...

...s acceptable to use animals for certain human requirements such as food as long as the animal is raised in a humane way, treated in a morally permissible manner during its lifetime, and killed using a painless method.
In conclusion, while human beings are given a privileged place over animals in the natural hierarchy of morally significant beings, it is not permissible to suggest that animals do not deserve moral status. Aristotle’s views that non-human animals do not possess the capacity to reason and therefore should be denied moral status should be disregarded in favour of Bentham’s view that non-human animals have the capability to perceive pain and pleasure, whether or not they can verbally communicated these feelings, as well as the capability of suffering and therefore should be regarded in an obligatory manner and treated with moral respect or status.

Show More
Related

  • The Case for Animal Rights

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Gary Steiner's Animal, Vegetable, Miserable

    1010 Words  | 3 Pages

    In which he describes the encounter between a man and a mouse, consequently, the writer determinates that there is certain connection between them, and that the mouse has also capacity to have thoughts, feel love and compassion. The connection between them is compared “a child of God” and the “holy creature” (Steiner 846). The writer concludes that as conscious beings, both individuals have the same level of dignity, therefore, the use of animals as food is considered an “unforgiveable”

    Read More

  • The Ethics of Animal Use in Biomedical Research

    1849 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • An Analysis Of Gary Steiner's 'Animal, Vegetable, Miserable'

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham's Theory Of Utilitarianism And Nonhuman Animals

    1268 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay: The Ethicals And Cons Of Animal Testing

    715 Words  | 2 Pages

    Every person in this world should accept the fact that animals are living beings just like us. Additionally, every person should accept that animals are not ours to experiment on, to torture or kill them for our own purpose. It is a well-known fact that they are intelligent creatures and most important – they do have the ability to think, to feel anger and happiness, they want to make friends and to have life partners. Can you imagine the pain they feel when they are separated one from another or when they are simply excluded from the freedom to live only to die for cosmetics? Therefore, if we are against keeping people in captivity against their will, torturing them, doing cruel experiments on them and causing them to suffer and bleed to death then we should also be against animal testing. Consequently, if it is immoral and unethical to torture, do harm or kill a person then it should be immoral and unethical to do the same to these innocent living creatures

    Read More

  • Philosophy and the Morality of Abortion

    1931 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Peter Singer's Speciesism And Moral Status

    736 Words  | 2 Pages

    Men have thought themselves to be the superior species for a long time, but Peter Singer brings a new perspective on the topic in his essay entitled Speciesism and Moral Status. Singer’s new way of thinking of it states that determining morals status requires the comparison between the cognitive abilities of humans and nonhumans. The main points he focusses on in his essay are cognitive capacities between animals and humans with severe mental retardation, religion affecting human’s beliefs of superiority, and finally the ability to suffer and how similar humans and nonhumans are.

    Read More

  • Aristotle and the Book of Nicomanchean Ethics

    2039 Words  | 5 Pages

    To achieve this topic, I have sectioned my paper into three main sections, in which I have subsections supporting. In the first section, I will provide much information about Aristotle and his beliefs in virtue and obtaining happiness. Using information from his book of ethics I will provide examples and quote on quote statements to support his views. In the second section, I will provide my agreements as to why I relate and very fond of Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics. In the third section, I will provide research as to why there are such objections to Aristotle’s book of ethics, and counter act as to why I disagree with them. Lastly I will conclude much of my and as well as Aristotle’s views on ethics and why I so strongly agree with this route of ethics for humans.

    Read More

  • Analyzing Shakespeare´s Account of Human Nature in King Lear in Comparison With Other Authors

    1435 Words  | 3 Pages

    Science has now proven that there are indeed other animals capable of reason, such as apes and dolphins. The extent to which these beings can reason, however, has yet to be seen. In conclusion, it remains that, even after being around for over 2000 years, Aristotle’s philosophy on human nature remains one of the most accurate questions to the eternal question of “what is human nature?” It may not, in the end, prove to be the correct answer to the question, in fact, it may very well be possible that there is no definite answer possible. But until scholars and students in programs such as ours can find a suitable replacement, his analysis will remain superior to all others.

    Read More

  • David Hume's Argument on Passion and Morality

    1149 Words  | 3 Pages

    Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.

    Read More

  • Does Aristotle’s Function Argument Offer a Convincing Account of the Human Good?

    1843 Words  | 4 Pages

    Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.

    Read More

  • Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

    2024 Words  | 5 Pages

    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”.

    Read More

  • The Problem With Speciesism

    1118 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.

    Read More

  • Should We Be Vegetarians?

    1159 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper I will look at the argument made by James Rachels in his paper, The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism supporting the view that humans should be vegetarians on moral grounds. I will first outline the basis of Rachels’ argument supporting vegetarianism and his moral objection to using animals as a food source and critique whether it is a good argument. Secondly, I will look at some critiques of this kind of moral argument presented by R. G. Frey in his article, Moral Vegetarianism and the Argument from Pain and Suffering. Finally, I will show why I support the argument made by Frey and why I feel it is the stronger of the two arguments and why I support it.

    Read More

More about Philosophical Thinking: Humans and Animals

Open Document