Most human beings are inherently speciesist; meaning that they believe one species is superior to another. (Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2009. 6. Print.) It can be argued that this is just an expansion of the hardship of human equality, and just as we were once desensitized to others race or gender, we are now doing the same to animals. In addition, we don’t give much thought to what goes on beyond our own little bubble. We don’t care how our food got there; we just want it. We don’t care if our cleaning products or our makeup was tested on animals, as long as it works.
Animal rights activists claim that the ability to feel pain is the designation of moral worth; and that while humans have the
…show more content…
Both will feel the sting of the smack and react accordingly. Granted, the horse’s skin is thicker, causing the horse to have less of a reaction; however, it can be almost guaranteed that the horse will react. Our instinct, however, would be to comfort the crying baby, as it is a member of our own species, thus drawing us to it.
As children, we were all taught the sounds the animals on a farm make. We would picture the stereotypical farm with a barn and silo, and then be among the heartbroken when we found out exactly what it was that was waiting for us at dinner. This form of speciesism is possibly the most common, because it is unknowingly dealt with everyday. The corporations involved in producing our food often abuse the animals that end up on our plates. This abuse can range from verbal and physical assault to slitting the animals’ throats while they are still fully conscious. However, because of the lack of publicity on this issue; it often gets overlooked and pushed to the wayside.
Another back burner issue is that of animal testing. Every day, animals in labs are subjected to tests that are for our benefit. In truth, the difference in the genetic makeup of these animals and us, the people these results are trying to help, is so significant that the results can be nothing but inaccurate. To make these creatures endure cruel, often repetitive, and painful tests, only to have a slim
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”.
Within our society, we as humans have many ethical issues that we must discuss in order to progress. Even with all these issues many individuals don't look to understand animals and their rights to be free as well as healthy. Many companies use animals as test subjects in order to analyze or enhance their products. These tests come with cruelty or diminishing of that animals life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. There are also issues with the intermediate conditions and excessive constraints of livestock. Some areas in the United States don't have restrictions on how these matters must be regulated or fixed. In order to become an ethically correct and moral society, we must include animals in the moral community of pain and pleasure.
Doesn’t it kill you to see a movie and see an animal get killed or just hurt in it? Good thing that’s all special effects. Back in the day, around 1966, movies didn’t always use special effects. Khartoum, a movie based on a holy war in the Sudan desert, directed by Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, used horses a great deal, but did not use the special effects in order to not hurt the animals. Many horses died in the making of this movie, as well as others, even including a major hit, Ben-Hur. Today, there are many activist groups that fight for and about the unfair treatment and protection for animals in everyday life. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of these groups. PETA was founded in
Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS
Luckily, a lot of scientists nowadays realize that animal testing is inhumane and not necessary. Until today, thousands to millions of dollars are being wasted by funding to many studies that are not related to people’s lives, or studies that already proved dangerous to humans. For example, people learned that mercury, arsenic, and lead are toxic to humans, especially small children; however, the EPA still provided more than $400,000 for scientists to study on how these contaminants affect animals, by forcing pregnant rats and piglets to
Turning a blind eye to troubling realities is no new concept to western culture. The materialism, capitalism, and industrialization that is ever so prevalent in today’s “civilized” society has contributed to a separation between consumer and source; a veil of consumeristic ignorance. In agriculture, this is especially true. Similar to how the Nazis dehumanized the Jews, western society has essentially disconnected all empathy between humans and certain forms of life, namely livestock, with the only real reason for doing so being human enjoyment of animal products. Humans have also managed to do the exact opposite with other types of animals, namely pets, by personifying animals and creating one-way emotional bonds.
There are problems with both Tom Regan’s and Carl Cohen’s conceptions of the status of animals in society, but, overall, Regan’s is more consistent and applicable to all situations. Cohen also establishes a double standard regarding the definition of a “moral agent,” consequently weakening his argument for the use of biomedical testing on animals. Although I disagree with many of Regan’s ideas about the value of animals, I will not address these points in this paper. I will instead argue for Regan’s position and, in doing so, prove that his argument is more valid than Cohen’s.
Therefore, the current way we use animals such as food and experiments would be speciesism and needs to change to allow animals to live a normal life. On the other hand, Fox believes that the way we are treating animals is normal since they are not part of the moral community where they are given rights. This makes Fox’s argument difficult to support because it has many flaws regarding what is considered a member of the moral community. The author states, “Even though other species have not been systematically excluded from possible membership in the moral community, I have not hesitated to characterize the central concepts that define the moral community in human or humanly understandable terms” (Fox 186). This makes his argument hard to support because some humans do not have all the capacities of other human beings, which means they would not have rights or are considered a member of the moral community but are a part of the second layer of the community.
Peter Singer, the author of Animal Liberation, states that human-to-human equality should be extended to animals because humans and animals both possess the same perception of pain. Singer says, “Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species, especially the species most closely related to us - the species of mammals and birds” (Singer 11). Singer states his personal view on animal rights. Many people hold similar views, and these people believe that the issue of animal overpopulation should be addressed by means that most benefit animals. This type of view clashes with views that humans’ needs must come first. Even among thosewithin this group of people who prioritize animals, there are disputes about how to most ethically treat animals. Some oppose animal sterilization, while others believe it is a completely humane practice, again, therefore yielding no conclusive solution to the
According to the philosopher Peter Singer, a proponent of equal consideration of animals’ interests, speciesism is very much alike racism and sexism. While racism is discrimination based on one’s race and sexism discriminates against the opposite sex, speciesism discriminates against non-human species. Speciesists believe that only humans have intrinsic moral worth; therefore, rights should not be given to non-human species. In his article, All Animals Are Equal, Singer claims that like humans, animals are capable of experiencing pain and suffering, and for that reason, animals deserve equal consideration. To Singer, equal consideration is the basic and more important principle of equality.
In his article “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer discusses the widely-held belief that, generally speaking, there is no more inequality in the world, because all groups of formerly oppressed humans are now liberated. However, it often goes without notice that there are groups of nonhuman animals that continue to face unequal treatment, such as those that are consumed or used as scientific test subjects. Singer’s article criticizes the belief that because humans are generally more intelligent than nonhuman animals, then all humans are superior to all nonhuman animals. Singer argues that intelligence is an arbitrary trait to base the separation of humans and nonhumans, and declares that the only trait that one can logically base moral value is the capacity to have interests, which is determined by a creature’s ability to suffer. Singer explains that in order to stay consistent with the basic principle of equality, anything that has the capacity to suffer ought to have its needs and interests recognized, just as humans’ needs and interests are currently recognized through what he calls “equal consideration.” In this paper, I will explain Singer’s notion of equal consideration as the only relevant sense of equality and why it applies to the rights of both human and nonhuman species that are
backs and they were dragging their hind legs (Reed 38). While in the lab, the
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.
For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.
Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to humans. As pointed out by Jan Narveson "morality is a sort of agreement among rational, independent, self-interested persons who have something to gain from entering into such an agreement" (192). In order to have the ability to obtain rights one must be consciously able to enter into an agreement, non-human animals are