Morality is a naturally occurring, global, psychological effect many believe is based on a human’s ability to empathise, it is thought the uncomfortable feeling of seeing another suffer pushes us to prevent the suffering. It can be viewed as the governing principal that allows us to know the difference between what is right and wrong, it drives us to act in a way which allows other beings we exist with to have a positive experience, preventing suffering. This is why irreprehensible acts such as mental abuse, physical and sexual assault and murder are considered just so irreprehensible. The morality principal occurs in individuals to varying degrees, for example person A may dedicate their working life to helping underprivileged humans acting in a moral way towards mankind, while person B is a dedicated vegan, donates to charity and lives a lifestyle which is 100% friendly to the earth. Looking at these examples it is easy to see the differences lay in each individual’s interpretation of a being having an experience, this therefore determines their ability to empathise with humans, animals and or nature. Knowing the rudimentary explanation of morality, ethics could almost be described as the law of morality. The word ethics is used in an abundance of contexts and therefore is described using a vast amount of different guidelines. When biomedical or behavioural research is conducted on humans, which almost is the only research conducted on humans, a specific set of laws known as ‘The Belmont Report’ demands adherence. Originating in the USA in 1979 it is now used almost worldwide, while it is a short set of laws it explicitly states the benefits of the research must outweigh any risks to the participants, each participant must b... ... middle of paper ... ...1st ed.). Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. Knudson, M. (1973). Development of Two-Way Communication with the Chimpanzee Washoe.American Anthropologist, 75(6), 2024--2026. National Health and Medical Research Council,. (2013). Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes 8th edition. Regan, T. (1989). Does the Animal Kingdom Need a Bill of Rights?. Presentation, Royal Institute of Great Britain, London, UK. Nonhumanrightsproject.org,. (2014). The Nonhuman Rights Project. Retrieved 13 May 2014, from http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org The Nonhuman Rights Project,. (2013). First-Ever Lawsuits Filed on Behalf of Captive Chimpanzees to Demand Courts Grant Them Right to Bodily Liberty. The Nonhuman Rights Project,. (2013). Nonhuman Rights Project Advances to New York Appellate Courts in Three Chimpanzee Rights Cases.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Loeb, Jerod M. “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2011
Wyckoff, Jason, and M.A Bertz. "The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? - By Gary L. Francione & Robert Garner." Journal of Applied Philosophy 28.4 (2011): 414-16. Print.
Benthall, Jonathan. "Animal Liberation and Rights." Anthropology Today 23.2 (2007): 1-3. Anthropology Plus. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
Gunnarson, Helen W. "Animal law comes into its own: as Americans place more value -
Feinberg, Joel. Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy "The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations," Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980, 159-84. Essay.
League, Animal Defense. “Policy Statement on Animal Research.” Civil Rights in America. Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Media, 1999. American Journey.Student Resources in Context. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.
Is there not potential for Nature and non-humans to stand on their own in reflection on our own history of uneven legal standing, and in light of corporate standing? Resisting any dreamy subtext for non-human rights and pushing up against anthropomorphic affinities of the law, Stone says the unthinkable happens all the time. He writes, “Throughout legal history, each successive extension of rights to some new entity has been …a bit unthinkable” (2). Sometimes juridical unthinkables happen that we would, and do fault, as was the Dred Scott decision. Rights are not human guarantees whether recorded in law or not. Violations of law are not always findable or prosecutable. So where does this standing for humans meet up with
As the American Heritage Dictionary plainly states, morality is "a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct" (American Heritage Dictionary 2000). People have been researching the development of this sense of morality for centuries. There is great debate over how a person’s morality is formed and then how to categorize one person’s level of morality compared to others. Most researchers believe that people reach different stages of morality within their lifetimes. The tougher issue is determining what comprises the various stages of morality, which is dependent on what a person’s ideas of right or wrong are to begin with. Therefore in order to establish a set of moral stages, one must clarify what exactly is thought of as right or wrong to a group of people.
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).
Whether put simply or scrutinized, morality cannot be defined simply by looking at it from one or two perspectives. One must acknowledge the fact that there are several different factors that affect judgment between “right” and “wrong”. Only after taking into account everything that could possibly change the definition of righteousness can one begin to define morality. Harriet Baber, a professor at San Diego State University, defines morality as “the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct”. Baber refers to morality as a process or method when she calls it a “system”. In saying “we” she then means to say that this concept does not only apply to her but also to everyone else. Through morality, according to her, one can look at an action, idea, or situation and determine its righteousness and its consequences.
In the article “What makes us moral” by Jeffrey Kluger, he describes how morality is defined and how the people follow rules. Kluger discusses about scientific research that has been done to point out the important reasons of morality. Kluger explains that a person’s decision to do something good or bad is based on empathy, that humans tend not to do bad to those they sympathize with. Kluger also compares humans with animals and thinks that morality is the only thing that separates us from animals. I do agree with Kluger that people are born with a sense of right and wrong, but we should be taught how to use it. We learned to be nicer to those around us because we already know the type of person they are, and the morality we learned as children
However, it is the purpose of this essay to convince the reader otherwise. The question at hand is: do animals deserve rights? It must certainly be true. Humans deserve rights and this claim is made on numerous appeals. Of one of the pertinent pleas is made on the claim that humans can feel emotions. More importantly, that humans are capable of suffering, and that to inflict such pain is unethical. Those who observe the tortures of the Nazi Concentration Camp are instilled with a humane creed held for all humans. But if there is no significant gulf between humans, that is to say there is no gulf based on skin color, creed, or gender that will make one human more or less valuable than any other, then by what right can a gulf be drawn out between humans and our fellow creatures? The suffering of humans is why we sympathize with each other. Since animals suffer, they deserve our sympathy.
Orlans, F Barbara. (1990). Animals, Science, and Ethics--Section V. Policy Issues in the Use of Animals in Research, Testing, and Education. The Hastings Center Report, 20(3), S25-30. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1658998).
The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: should non-human animals have rights? I firmly believe that non-human animals should be given rights, rights such as the right to freedom, the right to be treated with respect and care, and the right to not be exploited. Non-human animals are similar to humans in many ways and they should not be subjected to the unsanitary and crowded living conditions that factory farms and other forms of non-human animal mass production factories force them into.. They have families that they care for females bear their children just as humans do. Many human beings take think they have an inferior position over non-human animals and inflict extreme suffering upon them. I believe non-human animals should be given rights.