An Objection To Peter Carruthers Against The Moral Standing Of Animals

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”.

In Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

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

In his ideal society, “an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice.” Rawls wished to create a system of “justice as fairness” that would be based in equality and justice. This system of “justice as fairness” he claimed began with choosing a “conception of justice that is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions.” This “conception of justice” is then, ideally, used as the basis on which an institution would build its constitution, legislature, and so forth.

“Nearly as many, 68 percent, were concerned or very concerned about the well-being of animals used in ‘sports’ or contests as well as animals in laboratories (67 percent) (Kretzer, 1).” Many people question whether an animal is capable of thought and emotions. Others feel as though animals are the equivalent of humans and should be treated as such. Since the 1800’s, animal rights has been a topic that has several different sides including two extremes. If animals can react to their environment, emote, and are aware of things done to or with them, then they should have similar rights to humans.

Rawls believes that in a situation where a society is established of people who are self-interested, rational, and equal, the rules of justice are established by what is mutually acceptable and agreed upon by all the people. This scenario of negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and beneficial to

Christine M. Korsgaard argues in the article ‘PERSONHOOD, ANIMALS, AND THE LAW’ that non-human animals, although may not be categorized as ‘persons’, should be regarded as ends in themselves and the subjects of rights against human treatment.

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.

We eat meat, we use woollen clothes. Sometimes we buy pets, such as-cat, puppy, bird etc. as our hobby. Zoo was our favourite place when we were child. We pass our time watching various types of animals in National Geography channel. After all these, we never give our attention to what impact they have for our activities. There is always a question about ‘’animal rights’’. Though both human and animal are the creation of God, human being never faces that much argument about having rights but animal does. After studying on this topic, I understood that Most of the argument goes against having animal rights. There are less right preserved for non-human being in environmental ethics.

To conclude The Laws of Peoples, Rawls invokes Kant’s sentiment towards justice such that a world in which humanity acts in a simply rational manner without regard for their role as members in a society is a world not worth having. Likely, this perspective simultaneously understands the logical possibility for mankind to enact a reasonable, unselfish society and the behavioral refusal to do so. Undermining agential capacities to craft a more just society would relegate these societies to morally questionable, if not damnable entities in which morality is dictated more greatly by what can be done, rather than what should be done; in which basic securities for the vulnerable and the social contract from which they stem have dissolved.

Animal rights are an important topic to discuss and review. The trouble is the vast diversity of how people see humans and animals and how they are different and yet the same. Animals are in every aspect of our lives in how they are utilized to make our lives easier, to sustain us, or as a pet. Unfortunately, the line of animals and humans blurs as the widely known belief that we are a derivation of an animal and we should treat them as we would ourselves. This viewpoint, however, can be taken to an extreme as we see pets that can be pampered quite a bit. Relating back to the four authors in our text, there is considerable controversy on how animals should be treated. While some interesting positions arise with the various authors, to

Argument for Animal Rights The argument for animal rights assumes that animals posses their own lives and deserve to be assigned rights in order to protect their wellbeing. This view insists that animals are not merely goods utilised only to benefit mankind and they should be allowed to choose how they want to live their lives, free from the constraints of man. But if animals are given absolute rights, then surely they shouldn’t be allowed to kill each other, as this would be a violation of these rights.

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.

John Rawls in his work, “A Theory of Justice,” aims to make up a theory that will rivals intuitionalists and utilitarianism, which seeks truth in morality that cause results in maximizing utility for the maximum number of people. Rawls’ theory of justice is a distribution theory that maximizes primary goods for the worst outcome an individual could be in. By primary goods, Rawls informs us that all rational and reasonable individuals will want to have certain fundamental goods that should not be denied anyone. These goods include liberty, autonomy, self-respect, and wealth, as I will later discuss in Rawls’ principle of equal liberty. To provide an argument that will combat utilitarianism, the philosopher uses a revised social contract theory that is to a tune of “higher abstraction” (Rawls, pg.10) than its predecessors John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant.

John Rawls's reflective equilibrium is exactly a coherentist model of moral knowledge. In the following parts, I will discuss the decision procedure using reflective equilibrium, how it avoids the problems that moral foundationalists may face, and will answer some objections to reflective equilibrium.