The Moral Status Of Animals

The starting point of this essay is to establish and lay out an animal rights claim. The point here is not to solely list which specific rights animals have, as that goes beyond the scope of this essay, but to discuss why animals do in fact have a claim to rights, and what this means for humans. The need to understand the intrinsic, or inherent value of animals allows us to see the base from which their claim to rights is derived. Inherent value refers to the idea that animals are valuable in themselves, not in what they provide us. Tom Regan, an animal ethicist, sets out the moral grounding from which we can

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 Chapter two of Moral, Believing Animals Christian Smith argues that human beings are moral animals because they are strong self-evaluators who inhabit morally based orders. In the next chapter, smith adds that humans are moral animals because they also believe. This ability to believe and act morally allows humans to stray away from our instinctive minds. In other words, it is apart of what makes us human. Smith finds that this way of viewing humans provides a better account of human religiousness. Religion is the manifestation of our capacity to be self-conscious. Smith uses Narrative morality writing to help explain his views on religion and human beings, which allow us to recognize our true moral capacity.

The matters pertaining the animal rights and their suffering for the sake of harvesting their flesh have been an issue with a variety of perspectives. Puppies, Pigs and People, a piece by Alastair Norcross, bring to question the treatment towards livestock and what is immoral about the process. The argument proclaims that since we (humans) do not require meat as part of our diet then the exploit of raising animals for consumption (humanly or not) is immoral. On a counter side of the argument, a philosopher, Carl Cohen, states in his work that animals possess no moral rights thus we have the option to eat them despite if it is immoral or not. In the case of who I believe offers the most optimum solution, I believe Cohen is the most accurate in his summation of animal’s roles in our world. I will argue that people have no obligation to abstain from eating animals, but morally speaking animals should be kept in humane living conditions in order for it to meet our obligations towards these creatures.

Regan, Tom. "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs." Forming a Critical Perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2010. 336-40. Print.

When discussing the issues faced from an ethical standpoint of animal rights it is important to consider the benefits animals bring to people and then question what rights animals are entitled to due to this (Fisher). Taking that into account, one must ask if giving them rights could possibly overstep on human rights and would animals even be able to enjoy rights (Fisher). It is often debated that the benefits and knowledge through experimentation of animals have led to life-saving advancements in the field of science and medicine (Fisher). The other side of the debate argues that even if these past benefits are justified, these type of experiments are no longer necessary and it is deemed unacceptable that wrongful treatment of animals is done for this purpose (Fisher). When it comes to the question of

“Hormone-free”, “organic”, “grass-fed”, and “natural” are labels that animal and plant producers use to inform consumers of what they are eating. These claims are misleading and usually increase the prices of those products. By increasing the price and sticking a label that reads “natural” makes consumers think that this product is better for them. Animal Welfare Approved gives an example of an egg carton boasting the statement that its eggs are “natural.” This statement can legally come from an industrial farm where the hens do not forage the way a chicken does “naturally.” According to the USDA, farms have to get organic certifications and accreditations in order to sell, label, and represent their products as organic. It is difficult to

The subject of animal testing for human advantages has always been a debatable topic. It is still undecided whether the use of animals for human benefits is morally right. On the other hand it is scientists and researchers who think that animals are good testing subjects because of various reasons such as preventing harmful products or finding cures to diseases. The two essays “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” by Tom Regan and “Proud to be Speciesist” by Stephen Rose talk about the concerns of animal rights but display the opposite viewpoints on the use of animals. Regan's argument has a more broad concept to the matter while Rose takes a deeper dive into exacts with an opinionated personal vibe. As the authors continue writing it is obvious

The framework I plan to discuss is Peter Singer 's utilitarian view on animal rights. A general idea of what utilitarianism is can be described as the need for the many outweigh the needs of a few, or “majority rule” when it comes to happiness. Singer’s criteria for how a being gets rights is based on the ability to feel pleasure or pain. With this criteria it allows people who are mentally handicapped, the senile, and babies to have rights (Hozien). Most would agree that it would be cruel to not give these people rights, so Singer argues that since animals can feel pain and pleasure they also have rights. Although he believes that they should be treated equal he does admit that there is a range or difference of pain. He equates this to racism or in this case speciesism. For instance he states that

Why should moral agents regard wild living things in the natural world as possessing inherent worth? To answer this question we must first take into account the fact that, when rational, autonomous agents subscribe to the principles of moral consideration and intrinsic value and so conceive of wild living things as having that kind of worth, such agents are adopting a certain ultimate moral attitude toward the natural world. This is the attitude I call “respect for nature.” It parallels the attitude of respect for persons in human ethics. When we adopt the attitude of respect for persons as the proper (fitting, appropriate) attitude to take toward all persons as persons, we consider the fulfillment of the basic interests of each individual

There was a man named Immanuel Kant, who once said, “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” This paper will be covering the moral issue on animal testing and whether animal testing is right or wrong. I will be applying the theories of Deontological, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics viewpoints on animal testing and then see which moral issue is better.

Most people agree that animals acquire at least some moral status as people have pets and speak out against crimes against animals, an example being animal shelters using euthanasia. Animals should be given the same level of respectful treatment as a human test subject would. We do not have the right to force animals to further benefit discoveries and our own goals, putting them into dangerous conditions that could alter their health. Peter Singer writes, “...whenever experimenters claim that their experiments are important enough to justify the use of animals, we should ask them whether they would be prepared to use a brain-damaged human being at a similar mental level to the animals they are planning to use” (Animal Liberation). Just because ‘we are human’ is not an adequate excuse for us to degrade animals and other living creatures to a lower moral

agiarNietzsche is one of the most famous, complex, baffling, and misunderstood philosophers of all time. Nietzsche begins his ethics with the proposition that there are only two basic types of morality: slave morality and master morality. These types of morality Nietzsche proposes were initially formed when society was not actually made up of masters and slaves. In a society where masters were completely free and slaves simply had to do whatever their masters said. Based on their respective situations Nietzsche argues these two groups of people came up with two very different types of morality. Now of course there are no longer literal master and slaves in today’s society. However nietzche proposes well masters and slaves no longer exist but the moral system they came up with do. Therefore if we are to understand and evaluate morality as it exists today, we must investigate morality as it was originally defined by master and slaves.

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.