Garrett Sargent
Paper 5 – Animal Rights and Welfare
11 June 2015
Section 1 Singer is a utilitarian that promotes all animals are equal, however, believes that some animals have different capacities for pain and happiness (text, 119). The latter part of the last statement is used to defend why saving a human is better than saving an animal, and also why a hunter is not equivalent to a murderer. As a utilitarian, Singer believes in maximizing good and is why he is able to claim that it is better to save a human than an animal. As humans we are capable of experiencing much more pain and happiness than other animals, which is why we take precedence (text, 119). Next, Singer demonstrates that although it can be shown that animals should not
…show more content…
Singer’s main argument is that if possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to be greater than another, then why can it entitle humans to be greater than nonhumans?
Section 2 Regan was a Kantian who argues that animals deserve moral respect and have rights just as humans do (text, 119). He believes that animals have inherent moral values just as humans do (text, 119). Regan calls for the abolishment of the use of animals in science, use in commercial animal agriculture, and us in commercial and sport hunting and trapping (text, 130). Regan defines what he thinks is the moral wrong in these cases and is clear to point out that the pain or suffering is not the wrong, but rather the fact that we as humans feel that we have the right to treat animals as a resource (text, 130). He is a big fan of the rights view where he views animals as having the same inherent rights as humans do. Regan argues that there is no reason why we do not treat a retarded baby or mentally deranged person any differently regarding equality, yet do so with nonhumans (text, 132). He claims unless we start treating ourselves different based on ability or physical characteristics that there would be no reason to justify treating animals as such. Regan continues on to state that it is not enough to tidy up processes like animals being used in science. A total replacement is needed and animals also need not be used for
The other half of Singer’s notion that our society is speciesist rests on how humans treat animals to produce food. “Factory farming” techniques cause “animals [to] lead miserable lives from birth to slaughter” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p.
Peter Singer’s argument is that all animals are equal and should be treated as such. He begins to build his argument by defining “equality”. Equality entails “equal consideration” for a being’s interests, with the potential for different treatment. Consider the difference in treatment between men and women in regards to abortion rights. Women have the right to get an abortion while men do not. This is not a difference in equality, but simply recognition of the fact that it could be in the interest of women to get one. Men on the other hand, have no desire or ability for this right. Singer
Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.
Peter Singer has written many works in support of animal rights. In one of his greatest works Animal Liberation, Singer goes into great depths on how similar in biology animals are to human beings. Another strong point was not only the biological resemblance, but also the behavioral tendencies and traits humans and nonhuman species share. There are two major areas of focus that Singer puts emphasis on that need to be recognized for the purposes of my argument. One focus is this utilitarian approach that only the human species carry: the belief of ethical and morally good behavior should be extended to the consideration of nonhuman species. The second focus that is the basis for my argument is Singer’s argument against a huge human social construct labeled speciesism.
A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as
He says these rules apply to all mature mammals, human or non-human. Regan believes that its wrong to dissect, hurt, torture, eat, cage or hunt a human so its wrong to do the same to an animal. He differentiates from Singer in the sense that he doesn’t agree with any kind of commercial animal use- either in the slaughter house or in-game.
In this case, Singer is discussing nonhuman equality. Singer argues that if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. He characterises this as ‘sentience’ the ability having the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness. Human speciesists do not accept that pain is as bad when it is felt by animals as it is felt by humans, which is the argument for extending the principle of equality to nonhumans. When making a distinction between animals and humans Singer states that there are many areas in which the superior mental powers of normal adult humans make a difference: anticipation, more detailed memory, greater knowledge of what is happening and so on. These differences between humans and animals lead to the conclusion that normal adult human beings have mental capacities which will, in certain circumstances lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances. However, Singer proposes that if we use this argument to justify experiments on nonhuman animals then we have to ask ourselves whether we are also prepared to allow experiments on human infants and retarded adults as they too would have no idea of what was going to happen to them. In conclusion, Singer argues that the difference between humans and animals should not be considered when defining the moral standards of animal equality, as the
This relates the previous arguments back to his thesis. There are deep views in the system of our beliefs that allow us to treat animals as if they lack independent value (inherent value), as if they are not a subject to life, therefore animals are currently treated as if they are a resource to us. Regan argues that all have inherent value, have it equally and therefore have equal rights. This showing that no being should be treated in such a way that reduces their moral worth. This equal treatment refute some aspects to the views of utilitarian and contractarianism views as they do not dig into the systematic problems leaving more to desire for animal rights.
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
Singer starts the article by challenging the reader's idea of the last form of discrimination; too many the last form of discrimination was sex-based but to Singer that is not the case. He believes people false consciously accept sexism as the last form of discrimination because there are no other groups of women that have advocated for rights, but people fail to realize oppression and discrimination go unnoticed until the group being mistreated points out the mistreatment. People look past the mistreatment of animals because animals cannot advocate for their rights. He refers to the discrimination against animals as speciesism; speciesism is the innate superiority of a species (homo sapiens) to another species without a solid foundation other than self-interest. Just like a racist places the self-interest of members of their own race superior to members of another race, a speciesist places the self-interest of members of their own species superior to another species. He continues by saying people are often confused when talking about animal rights; are we supposed to give animals the right to vote? He explains this concern by bringing up a woman’s right to an abortion. Woman have the right to an abortion
All Animals are Equal: The Rights of Non-Humans If an oppressor group does not even stop to think that their victims may in some way be equal, they will not even realize that they are an oppressor in the first place. This is the line of argument that Singer uses in his paper All Animals are Equal, where he claims that most humans are deeply speciesist. Indeed, as civil rights groups for humans of different races, sexes, sexualities, religions, and more have pushed the notions of human equality in the mainstream further and further, Singer feels that discrimination of non-humans has largely been overlooked by common people and philosophers alike. This essay will go over Singer’s notion of rights and equality, arguments for the rights abuses
Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.
The study of good and bad, right and wrong, moral principles or value held by a person or society, promoting human welfare, maximizing freedom minimizing pain and suffering is called ethics. The discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings and also the value and moral status of the environment and its non-human contents is called environmental ethics. It considers the ethical relationship between the humans and the environment. Animal and animal rights are the highlighted topic in the environmental ethics.
In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as
Where I do not disagree with the basis of Singer’s argument, I do disagree with some of the minor facts used to support this argument. I disagree with the notion that the human race is ready to do anything to another species in order to satisfy our taste, that non-human animals are seen like machines and they are kept in unsuitable conditions. In general, Singer’s argument seems to be based on vague points and generalizes the human population.