Use and misuse of animals.

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.

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

The question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.

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

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

Scientists say that it is beneficial to humans to test out all these products and drugs on animals but they always seem to leave out the part about how it would be even more beneficial to test things on ourselves. I think the real reason we sacrifice hundreds of thousands of animals lives to possibly save a few human is because we view ourselves as more superior to rats, mice, dogs, pigs, monkeys, etc. Even though in an Associate Press survey “2/3 of Americans surveyed said an animal’s right are just as important as a humans”, nobody would die in place of a rodent. Many people think that humans are smarter than all other animals and that’s why their lives can be sacrificed, but KoKo the gorilla has an IQ of 80, which is only twenty points lower than the average human (The Rights of Animals). That means that no one can factor in intelligence level for who partakes in food and medical experiments because most mentally challenged people have a lower I Q than KoKo the gorilla. Besides, an intelligent person doesn’t suffer from pain differently

In human history, several oppressed human groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly and have consideration. This means that when an issue concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value. This equality should not be determined by that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical stren¬¬gth of their bodies. Peter Singer brings up a similar idea in his essay: “All Animals Are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when an issue concerns them (Singer, quoted in Williston, p. 29-36). Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have

The idea of animal rights has been around for centuries. Even decades ago, people were taking action for the welfare of animals. Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger share this idea all the way back in 1994 when they said that there is evidence that scientist are concerned with animal welfare by acknowledge that they use the guidelines in place to protect animals during research, in order to have their work published (Bekoff 219). Guidelines are the basis for the moral and ethical treatment of animals. Each person may have his or her own standard, but having a standard among the entire population ensures the welfare of the animals. Unfortunately, these standards are not at a level to where the animals are being protected. Many animals in captivity are treated in ways that would shock the average person. Orcas for example, are starved until they do the desired task (Cowperthwaite). This form of operant condition can lead to success, but often leads to resentment and hostility towards the trainers.

First, Steven Best, argues that humans deny rights to animals due to the labels we give them. We label animals speciesism as a way to justify our actions on how we treat them. Second, he stated, “might be a philosophical nature issue arises from the logical meaningless way we reject any attempt to compare moral values to nonhuman forms”(Best 4).This can be interpreted as humans ignorance. Best makes a point that the way we express ourselves subconsciously grants us the permission to test, label, and slaughter nonhuman life for our benefits or

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

The concept of animals rights is based on the belief that nonhuman animals have similar interests and rights to those of human beings. It would be considered, not only unlawful, but inhumane to hunt, test, and use humans for medical research. However, we do exactly that to nonhuman animals in hopes of creating a better and safer life for existing humans. Do we do it because human beings, as opposed to nonhuman animals, hold a special place in nature? That human good is the only good? Or is because human individuals hold true to the “top of of food

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

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

Peter Singer’s argues that we should take a utilitarian viewpoint on how people should treat animals. He sees that animals can, in some cases, be smarter than humans and should therefore have some rights in how the animals should be treated. His argument holds this general viewpoint, “..we [should] extend to other species the basic