Do Humans Have Moral Obligations On Human Animals? Essay

Non-human animals should have the same rights that humans have such as not being used as food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation.

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”.

Animals share the same right as human beings. To have a right is to have a claim or entitlement to something and to have that claim recognized by others. There are two types or rights; legal and moral rights. Legal rights are comulgated by law making part of government. Moral rights are stems from reason and worth for example life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I believe animals share both rights because the only difference between human beings and animals is basically the ability to speak.

“Speciesism and the Idea of Equality” by Bonnie Steinbock is a rebuttal to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”. The issue presented is should animal rights be considered on the same par as human rights? The conclusion is no, animal rights shouldn’t be on the same standing as human rights. There are several reasons that support this conclusion. The first reason is that humans have abilities that animals don’t have. Steinbock states, “It is not arbitrary or smug, I think, to maintain that human beings have a different moral status from members of other species because of certain capacities which are characteristic of being human” (225). There are three sub points within this argument that help her case. They include: human

If an individual were to read this without looking further into my logic, they might think I am a cold-hearted person who takes pleasure out of beating cute puppies. But I am far from this. As an animal lover and cattle producers, I have the utmost respect for animals and despise people who mistreat these creatures. But in this instance I take a deontological approach and agree with Cohen in that animals have no right, but we as human have a moral obligation to care for animals humanely. As Cohen states, animals lack the ability for free moral judgment, as they are not capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Cohen goes on to say that it is only within a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked (Cohen, 340). Therefore it is on the basis that animals are unable to make claims against others or have moral judgment that they do not have rights. But I find it vitally important that we as humans understand that we have an internal commitment or obligation to treat animals

Peter Singer is one philosopher who attempts to answer this question. Singer being an advocate of animal equality argues that humans and animals are morally equal. He believes the unjust treatment of animals is derived from speciesism; describes the widespread discrimination

That is all animals or living beings have an inherent value and equal rights apply to animals just as they would to any human (Pg. 501).

In the article “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research” it was mentioned that “we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals. All creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status” (Yong). Anything with a beating heart has the ability to feel pain, so they should have someone or something protecting them from feeling unnecessary pain. The reason that it should not go to the extent of humans is because animals do not perform the civil duties that humans often do. This is why Hiasl, the chimpanzee, who had an owner fighting to get him granted legal citizenship lost his

Catholic views on animal abuse is varied greatly. The ‘traditional’ view is that humans are made in a different image than animals. It proclaims that humans have been given ‘dominion’ over nature, meaning humans can use animals in accordance to their own needs (gen 1:28). However, many Catholics disagree and believe that God gave human ‘stewardship’ over the animals, which means we are put on this Earth to look after and care for God’s creation (Luke 12:6). There are a number of Catholic authorities that discourage animal abuse;

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.

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

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.

third world. Singer feels that since the people of the third world are so far

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.

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