Analysis Of Nonhuman Animals

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). However in the utilitarian’s view this is simply not the case. The utilitarian belief that morality is the goal of obtaining happiness (Rachels 100).

As a result “humans and nonhumans are equally entitled to moral concern” (Rachels 108). This raised another argument about moral standings and if animals and humans are equally entitled to be equals. Since humans have more abilities to seek pleasure in various other forms and are capable of experiencing many other emotions humans have to take account of the suffering of animals. It is a “moral duty” (Rachels 108). In spite of having the moral duty horrific experiments still occur with animals such as the ones listed in the book. In no way did these experiments bring happiness to the animals. The utilitarian view determines what is morally wrong or right by the effects. If happiness was brought upon for many more than for those who got unhappiness it is morally right. Only if a greater good was

I strongly feel that animals should be treated with respect and be cared for. In the situations in which animals are used for experiments such as “ Maryland 1996” from the book that discussed how scientists cut holes in the dog throats to put the cord in but all the dogs ended up dead within the three weeks nothing came out of that experiment but harm and unhappiness to the dogs ( Rachels 109). I personally believe that animals do have feelings and feel emotions as will. For example Harry F. Harlow’s experiment with the baby monkey and the wired mother versus the clothed mother. The monkeys constantly preferred the clothed mother because they felt comfort they would get frighten and run towards it. If baby monkeys can get frighten and have the instinct to run to their mothers like a small child would do I think scientist should take that into account and realize that all their doing is making the animal suffer. However I do not believe animals are equals to