Why Should They Not Belong From Other Animals? Essay

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

Descartes’ argue that mind is better known than body by first claiming humans as fundamentally rational, meaning “a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling,” ( Descartes, 19) he therefore argues that humans have the ability to know their proper minds clearly and distinctly. He proposes the conception of the mind where the imagination and the senses are also inherent capabilities of the body (faculties), specifically powers of the mind.

Animals are used for a variety of different tests. Human disease cures are always tried on animals first, most make up must perform experiments with the product on animals first, and dogs and pigs are used to practice surgery on for surgeons. It is not fair and humane to conduct experiments on animals to make sure a product or procedure is safe for us to use or endure. There are no legitimate reasons that an animal’s life is worth less than our own. I think that animal's should have similar rights that people have because they too feel pain and experience emotions and just because they look different doesn’t mean that they are that much different than us.

However, one must remember that by “mind” Descartes meant only “a thing that thinks” (Meditations, p. 20), which is to say that thinking is the essence of the mind. From this kernel of truth Descartes builds up the rest of his understanding of the mind and part of this understanding is that the mind is entirely accessible to itself and in this sense is one unified thing. However, today the

In Meditation six: Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction between Mind and Body, Rene Descartes wrote of his distinctions between the mind and the body, first by reviewing all things that he believed to be true, then assessing the causes and later calling them into doubt, and then finally by considering what he must now believe. By analyzing Descartes’ writing, this paper will explicate Descartes’ view on bodies and animals, and if animals have minds. Before explicating the answer to those questions, Descartes’ distinctions between the mind and the body should first be summarized and explained.

For in Descartes terms, it was plausible to doubt that one has a body, but impossible to doubt the existence of one’s mind; therefore “…self and mind must be identical” (Palmer 162).

To think that we are still not thinking, as Heidegger would say, is something we achieve through the body: “To think is to learn what a non-thinking body is capable of, its capacity, its postures” (189), and I shall add: its ceremonies.

To support his claim of dualism, Descartes presents a number of arguments that attempt to prove that the mind is separate from his body. Two of his strongest points are from the conceivability argument and divisibility argument. Further reinforcement of his claims comes from the idea of privileged first-person access, where he concludes that only an individual has full access to his own thoughts and state of mind.

Descartes has a very distinct thought when thinking about the mind, and how it relates to the body, or more specifically then brain. He seems to want to explain that the mind in itself is independent from the body. A body is merely a physical entity that could be proven to be true scientifically and also can be proven through the senses. Such things are not possible with the meta-physical mind because it is independent of the body. Building on his previous premises, Descartes finally proves whether material things exist or not and determines whether his mind and body are separate from each other or not. In Meditation Six, Descartes lays the foundation for dualism which has become one of the most important arguments in philosophy.

It has been a common philosophical principle, since Descartes, that each of us has an ultimate access to our thoughts. This principle implies individual’s ability to process inner thoughts in such a way that nobody else can. Even though Descartes has great confidence in his belief of privileged access, there still exists some skeptical doubts concerning whether human beings could possess such ability. As an individualist, I have strong belief in human’s power over our thoughts. Although there are circumstances that can cause us to make mistake about what we think, the privileged access to our own thoughts are undeniable.

Descartes concludes that the attribute of thinking is the only quality that he can justifiably claim at this point. But he is quick to point out that thinking is the only attribute about which he is sure; not that thinking is the only attribute that he has. Nevertheless, this is the starting point of a radical ontological distinction that carries Descartes through his Meditations. That distinction is between a "thinking thing" and a corporeal body. The two are mutually exclusive. A "thinking thing" is nonphysical or spiritual in nature, whereas a corporeal body is physical, but not capable of consciousness or thought. For Descartes, a "thinking thing" is consciously aware of what is around it and doubts, understands some, is ignorant of most, imagines, and feels.

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.

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.

Descartes assumes that if it is possible to conceive of one thing without the other, then those two things are not identical. The self is not a body, it’s not a physical thing without a body. He also argues that we can conceive of ourselves as existing. Thinking is

Animal rights is a catchphrase akin to human rights. It involves, however, a few pitfalls. First, animals exist only as a concept. Otherwise, they are cuddly cats, curly dogs, cute monkeys. A rat and a puppy are both animals but our emotional reaction to them is so different that we cannot really lump them together. Moreover: what rights are we talking about? The right to life? The right to be free of pain? The right to food? Except the right to free speech – all the other rights could be relevant to animals.