In the article “All Animals are Equal”, it teaches that in all the activities that we aim to accomplish, there will come a point we will face a type of discrimination and must fight for equality but when it comes to animals they are not given the same choice. Singer explains, “We are not racists ourselves, most of us are speciesists” (Singer 539). Speciesism can be defined as a prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. An example of speciesism is the testing of animals in a laboratory. Every day, animals are tortured and experimented on for either human consumption or tested to treat diseases in humans. When experimenting on animals, they are alive and may display …show more content…
Human infants display the same characteristics of animals, they are both innocent and cannot refuse what is happening to them. Although experimenting on human infants is wrong in a society, animals or non-humans would argue for equality. Singer explains, “The basic principle of equality, is equality of consideration, and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (Singer 531). Equality can be defined as the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. Singer argues that when it comes to experimenting on animals and non-humans they have different rights when it comes to human infants. Singer explains, “It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess – although precisely what this concern requires us to do many vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do” …show more content…
Singer explains, “If the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality” (Singer 531). All humans come in all different shapes, colors, sizes. We all have different morals, intellectual abilities and able to feel pleasure and pain. Animals and non-humans share the same factor yet we still treat them differently. For example, let us say that we have a pet rock and a pet cat. The rock does not have the rights as the cat because the rock is a thing or an object. The cat does not have the same rights as the rock because it is a living animal and it is capable of feeling pain. Although both things are being used as pets, they cannot have the same equal rights. If you threw the pet rock out the window, it will not feel any pain. If you threw the pet cat out the window, there is a possibility the cat would sustain injuries. This example proves that different beings may lead to different treatments and towards different rights. Another example would be equality between men and women. Women have come a long way with their fight towards equality but are still a constant battle. Many decades ago, women did not have the right to vote and that was the law of the land. It was later realized that women should be given this right because they can make the same rational decisions as men. Women in society today are in a constant battle
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).
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.
In his article entitled “Animal Liberation,” Peter Singer suggests that while animals do not have all of the exact same rights as humans, they do have an equal right to the consideration of their interests. This idea comes from the fact that animals are capable of suffering, and therefore have sentience which then follows that they have interests. Singer states “the limit to sentience...is the only defensible boundary of concern for interests of others” (807). By this, he means that the ability to feel is the only grounds for which rights should be assigned because all species of animals, including humans, have the ability, and therefore all animals have the right to not feel suffering and to instead feel pleasure.
Aiding the death of infants is a much disputed controversy in healthcare. H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. provides an ethical view that there is a moral duty not to treat an impaired infant when this will only prolong a painful life or would only lead to a painful death. It is these individuals, like Engelhardt, who must defend this position against groups who consider that we have the ability to prolong the lives of impaired infants, thus we are obligated to do so.
Animal testing is a subject appalled by many people. It is considered to be unethical, inhumane, and downright cruel. One of these reasons for the opposition of animal experimentation is due to the belief shared by many animal activist groups, such as PETA, that animals are kept in appalling living conditions in research facilities. Reasons to believe this are caused by minor instances of laboratories not abiding the law. However, despite these instances the welfare of test animals are preserved by many laws and regulatio...
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...
Women have been treated unequally since the beginning of time. Just recently have things began to change for the better for women and the future of our society. The increase in women’s equality rights will take time, but some day women and men will be treated equally. This cannot happen until each of us is able to look at a person and just see another individual, not a male or a female, white or black, rich or poor… a person as just a person.
Equality does not exist, for it is impossible for everyone to be equal. & nbsp; There will always be a leader, and there will always be followers, and they will never be equal. A society in which all are equal will never exist because people will have different opinions on the way that the society should be run. "This arrangement would have worked well enough if it had not been for the disputes between Snowball and Napoleon. These two disagreed at every point where disagreement was possible." & nbsp; Snowball and Napoleon are battling for control of the farm, they both want to be the leader because they know that the leader has the most privileges. The animals that are in charge, the pigs, do less work than the other animals.
Animal testing is a controversial topic with two main sides of the argument. The side apposing animal testing states it is unethical and inhumane; that animals have a right to choose where and how they live instead of being subjected to experiments. The view is that all living organism have a right of freedom; it is a right, not a privilege. The side for animal testing thinks that it should continue, without animal testing there would be fewer medical and scientific breakthroughs. This side states that the outcome is worth the investment of testing on animals. The argument surrounding animal testing is older than the United States of America, dating back to the 1650’s when Edmund O’Meara stated that vivisection, the dissection of live animals, is an unnatural act. Although this is one of the first major oppositions to animal testing, animal testing was being practiced for millennia beforehand. There are two sides apposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today.
Each year, millions of animals, ranging from mice to monkeys, suffer through the cruel and inhumane practice of animal testing. Scientist throughout the world are torturing animals for mankind’s own benefit, which is unreliable in most cases. “According to Humane Society International, animals that are used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing processes and the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies.” Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, these animals do not have a voice to say no. The pain, suffering, and deaths inflicted on these animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Scientist test the animals for many products that we humans can use (makeup, medicine, etc.). Many of the items we purchase on a regular basis have been tested on animals first. Most of the animal testing is unreliable.
Hurting an animal is better than hurting a fellow human being right? Well imagine a child being ripped away from his mother in today’s society, for no reason. Would that be considered okay, or kidnapping? Imagine humans being forced to breed, just so their children can be tortured for makeup or a new facial wash. Would that be considered okay, or morally incorrect? People do not see animals as fellow living things, because they do not have the power to say no like a person can. They can’t stand up for themselves, leaving the people of the world to do it for them. Seeing that there are other ways to test out consumer products, why harm defenseless, breathing, loving, beings? With all things considered, animal testing “has no place in science today” (Goodall, 1).
Warren insists that the “moral” sense of human and “genetic” sense of human must be kept separate in this observation. As she defines the two, she goes on to say that the confusion of the two: “results in a slide of meaning, which serves to conceal the fallaciousness of the traditional argument that since (1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and (2) fetuses are innocent human beings, then (3) it is wrong to kill fetuses. For if `human' is used in the same sense in both (1) and (2) then, whichever of the two senses is meant, one of these premises is question begging. And if it is used in two different senses then of course the conclusion doesn't follow”(Warren 434). With this she concludes that a human being is one that is a fully active participant in society. In the moral commun...
Animal testing is the use of non-human animals for scientific experimentation. There are estimates that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide from zebra fish to on-human primates are used annually. Much larger numbers of invertebrates are used even flies and worms are used has model organisms are very important, experiments on invertebrates are largely unregulated and not included in statistics. Animals are euthanized after being used in a experiment. Some of these animals are purpose-bred and others are caught in the wild or they are supplied by dealers who obtain them from auctions and pounds. The testing on the animals are conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense establishments and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. Some of the tests that researchers do on the animals are biomedical research transplantation, drug testing and toxicology test, cosmetics and other animals are used for directional research, breeding and defense research. Organizations like PETA and BUVA thinks it it not a necessity for this testings. They think is is cruel, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated and that animals used for experimentations have an intrinsic right not be be used for experimentation. Many Americans don’t agree with testing on animals. Testing animals is wrong and they are just poor helpless animals and they die every day. They are testing animals with products such has soap, household cleaners, drugs, cosmetics, pesticides and other chemicals. Drug tests that are done on animals that pass the test end up harming or killing humans. Lists of animals that get tested daily are cats, dogs, monkeys, mice, and rabbits. The researchers test these ...
Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”. The principle of equality “does not imply that we must treat two groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights t...
Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection. Throughout centuries, medical research has been conducted on animals.