Similarly, to claim that an animal deserves no rights or sympathy is faulty on the same reasoning. It creates a gu... ... middle of paper ... ..., economics, and humaneness prefer otherwise. Therefore, Vegetarianism is the first logical step in Animal Rights. If we continue to kill and eat them, then what real recognition of their rights has there been? Another area where their rights are disregarded is in blood-sports, where creatures are hunted and killed for some sake of pleasure -- that terror in the hearts of animals brings warmth to the hearts of men.
In Tom Regan’s article “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs,” he explores three different philosophical “accounts” and talks about their view and stances on animal rights and the treatment of animals. The first account that Regan looks at is the Kantian account, which is that humans have obligations to treat animals right only because if humans treated animals poorly it would lead to humans treating one another poorly. Regan says this account to be amiss because it makes us assume that animal interests do not matter and that we are not concerned with the poor treatment of the animal, yet instead we are concerned with the effect the action will have on humans in the future. The second account that Regan analyzes is the cruelty account, which revolves
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.
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.
The issue of animal experimentation is a widely debated topic in the United States. A fundamental question of this debate is whether the functions of animal testing and research are morally and ethically justified. In the viewpoint of the pro-research community, animal testing is a necessary practice. They support this position by stating that humans, instinctually, prioritize their own survival above other animals thus making any use of animals justifiable (Fox 5). The supporters of animal testing believe that it is illogical for humans to place anthropocentric values in animals citing that they can not be moral equals to mankind (Fox 3, 6).
So how possibly can we say that we have achieved the demanded moral equality if there is not equal treatment.... ... middle of paper ... ... preform the same experiments on orphaned disabled human beings. Aspect that takes us back to Singer’s moral equality demand through the principle of moral consideration in experimenting with animals; which cannot be achieved if there is no equal treatment, yet his argument assures that equal consideration it does not entail equal treatment. Finally, I can say that Singer’s argument definitely helps to set the standard of a moral status for all non-human animals. However, the way this interests are meant to be considered without entailing equal treatment represent a problematic ethical position since we are not willing to grant same considerations to humans in similar of conditions to non-human animals. Moral equality cannot be achieved without equal treatment specially in animal testing since we are not willing to so the same humans, regardless of their condition.
When it comes to animals and their rights, there is a definite line between our needs and our taking advantage of those species that we consider inferior. As long as man has existed he has been carnivorous, and the same holds true for many other species of animals. Animals are a necessity to humans for survival, whether it be for food, clothing, etc. However, the unnecessary torture of animals through testing is not a necessity for human survival. When it comes to the needless torture of animals that we claim to benefit, the animals lives need to be taken into consideration.
Speciesism, as defined by Peter Singer, “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 6). The rationale for the preferential treatment encapsulated in this definition is simply the fact that those receiving the preferred treatment belong to the same species, and not on the basis of any grounds of higher intelligence or other attributes. Singer ensures that the reader can easily relate to this concept by drawing parallels between it, racism and sexism. Drawing this parallel also automatically associates speciesism with a negative emotion in the mind of the reader, since the concepts of racism and sexism generally carry powerful negative connotations in the modern age. It is then easier for Singer to convince the reader that a variance in treatment for animals simply based on the fact that they are not human is “morally indefensible” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 16).
in which he makes an interesting and well crafted argument supporting the Korean practice. In this article, Saletan effectively deconstructs the opposing arguments and makes the strong counter-point on logical, moral, and emotional grounds, that the movement to outlaw dog meat in South Korea has an undercurrent of cultural arrogance and even racism. The strongest argument against the dog meat industry centers on the treatment of the dogs that are often killed by ?beating, strangling, [and] boiling? instead of more humane methods such as electrocution. Unnecessary cruelty against animals is universally considered wrong, and is in many cases illegal, and that is what makes this argument effective.
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism according to 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.