I feel that some animals are more capable of acting morally than others. Many animals act simply out of natural impulse or training, but I do feel that there are some that are capable of doing something simply because they feel that it is right. For example, a lion acts out of innate instinct. For them, they do not kill a gazelle because it is moral or not, but because they are hungry and need to survive. They would not refuse to kill something because it was the wrong thing to do, but merely because there was no reason to.
An ape, on the other hand, I feel is capable of doing something because they have a sense that it is right. They may not be able to cognitively understand morality or ethical behavior, but they can do things to please others.
I am not sure exactly what sets some apart from others. I would say that as an animal becomes closer to humans on the DNA ladder, they are more capable of having a moral standing.
3. If a person was given a vaccine so that they could never feel pain again, I would say that they are still due moral concern. What if a person was to hit them with a car and then leave the scene – something I would consider to be an immoral? Just because they cannot feel the pain, that does not make the act committed against them moral or right. I feel, much like Tom Regan, that a being needs only to be ...
... middle of paper ...
...e and endangerment. Why? Because it is immoral and harming a life. However, Kantian views of moral agency state that this infant is not due moral concern, therefore, by following this theory, I would be considered to be acting morally by allowing my child to starve.
The law obviously disagrees with the Kantian notion that only those who can reason are worthy of moral concern. Regulations are put into place to protect the young, the old, animals, and mentally disabled. In my opinion, they are created to protect the most vulnerable in our society and those who are, perhaps, due a greater amount of moral concern because of their defenselessness. For this reason, I believe the utilitarian belief system is better than that of the Kantian philosophy because the utilitarian concept of moral agency holds that anything that has the ability to suffer is due moral concern.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- In Paola Cavalieri’s text, “Are Human Rights Human?”, Cavalieri provides the reader with the antiquities of Western ethics and descriptively outlines the “zero grade moral status” treatment of nonhumans. Paola’s goal throughout the text is to provide context for the reader to display how animals have been completely excluded from the moral community, which is mostly emphasized in her evaluations on recent views toward nonhumans being limited to a moral patient status. She believes that since the focus of human rights is the right to create a purpose in life, animals should be given the same legal rights as humans because of their ability to express and feel emotion, the main difference bet... [tags: western ethics, kant]
1618 words (4.6 pages)
- ‘Hominum causa omne ius constitutum: all law was established for man’s sake’. Endorsed by early Judaeo-Christian beliefs, holding that humans were created in God’s image having ‘dominion over all animals’. This statement remains true today, despite such assertions being undermined by scientific developments proving homo sapiens to simply be biological entities like any other organism. Such discoveries call into scrutiny the determination of rights on the basis of species and have lead to modern philosophers asserting the contention that animals should be included within the spectrum of rights.... [tags: ]
1617 words (4.6 pages)
- In the text Rachels addresses the point of “nonhuman animals” treatment (Rachels 106). He goes on to point out that Christians believe that animals do not have souls so that allows humans to treat animals how they please. According to Aquinas beliefs humans and animals are set in two different moral categories. In accordance to Aquinas “philosophers have said that animals are not rational, non-speaking, and are just not human”. Which does make them completely different from humans who do have these characteristics so in which case are placed “outside the sphere of moral concern” (Rachels 107).... [tags: Morality, Human, Ethics, Religion]
767 words (2.2 pages)
- 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.... [tags: Animal Rights]
1888 words (5.4 pages)
- In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.... [tags: Ethics, Tom Regan]
1245 words (3.6 pages)
- In this paper I will argue that if certain conditions are met, it is morally permissible for humans to do laboratory experiments on non-human animals (from this point on, animals). Human beings as a species are superior in ways that grant us higher moral value in comparison to all other species - this will be proved in this paper. Characteristics such as superior intelligence, the ability to discuss morals, and the ability to reciprocate and act on morals grant humans a higher moral value than animals when human interests conflict with animal interests.... [tags: Morality, Human, Value theory, Experiment]
1230 words (3.5 pages)
- 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.... [tags: Morality, Ethics, Utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant]
1406 words (4 pages)
- 1. This experiment is about determining whether humans and nonhuman animals are capable of long-term collaborative relationships to benefit their survival. There are two kinds of reciprocity that this study explores, which are attitudinal and calculated reciprocity. Attitudinal reciprocity deals with emotional connections between certain individuals, while calculated reciprocity remembers the deeds of each interactions they had. This study is important, because it addresses the strategies that are employed to ensure one’s survival.... [tags: Hypothesis, Scientific method, Observation]
765 words (2.2 pages)
- Many people say it is hard to fit into today’s society. We grow up in a world where we do not want to stand out because that is considered wrong. We want people to accept us, but we cannot do that when we do not fit in. You may not like the people who fit in, but you have to get to the top somehow. Some people feel they must help people in need because they have more than them and it sometimes hurts to see them have less. Some people are nice to others, but you can’t be nice to everyone. Can you really reach the top by fitting in and not standing out.... [tags: standing out, fit in, adolescence]
794 words (2.3 pages)
- I will argue that Utilitarianism is a reasonable ethical theory to demonstrate we have a duty to accord moral consideration to sentient beings equally, in this case non-human animals. I will illustrate under Utilitarian criteria, that non-human animals are indeed sentient and that it is enough to count for moral standing. I will defend my argument in examples of practices commonly used in treating animals a resource, such as for food and in laboratory experiments. This will prove that any action that fails to treat animals as a being with moral standing violates an animal’s right, and therefore is morally impermissible.... [tags: theory, duty, moral, equal]
2116 words (6 pages)