More Subjects
Animal Rights
Author’s Name
[Institutional Affiliation(s)]
Author Note
Animal Rights
The discussion on animal rights has proven to be a difficult one for philosophers. A great deal of disagreement and discord has been seen in the community of philosophers on the issue of animal rights. A number of theories have been presented over the years to grapple with the issue. In this paper, we will discuss the arguments and the validity of those arguments presented in the respective theories to develop a sound understanding of the issue of human rights. At the end, I will explain my position on the issue and why I resort to the specific understanding.
There are three main theories on animal rights that are presented namely “indirect theories”, “direct but unequal theories”, and “direct and equal theories”. Several strands of arguments run from each type of theory. Some of the most prominent theories under the compartmentalization of indirect theories include worldview theories, Kantian theories, and cartesian theories. All of them, in essence, propose that animals should not be granted moral concern on their own but they should only be given moral concern as it relates to human beings. Aristotle was the first to make the case for indirect theory on animal rights, arguing that since only animals and humans have conscious experience and that only human beings have the intellect to drive that conscious experience, therefore, the function of animals is to be of service to human beings. Later, St. Thomas Aquinas made a similar case by stating that animals do not exist for their own case but they exist for the sake of human beings, therefore, their moral consideration should be restricted ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"sv8VQHYJ","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Pohl, 2015)","plainCitation":"(Pohl, 2015)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":111,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/DTmO0ro3/items/JKAUMTSL"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/DTmO0ro3/items/JKAUMTSL"],"itemData":{"id":111,"type":"post-weblog","title":"Theories on Animals and Ethics | Office of the Vice President for Research","abstract":"How would we define the issue of animals and ethics and the use of animals- whether in biomedical use, exhibition, or as pets? Does common sense play a role in this? Is it a philosophical issue or a moral debate? Is it a personal choice or a societal dilemma? These questions are not easily answe ...","URL":"https://ovpr.uchc.edu/services/rics/animal/iacuc/ethics/theories/","language":"en-US","author":[{"family":"Pohl","given":"Alison"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2015",8,10]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",11,30]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Pohl, 2015). Another strand of arguments in this compartmentalization of theories on animal rights includes the Kantian theory. He developed the moral theory that moral considerations of actions are only to be given to creatures that are autonomous, i.e. they have rationality. Since animals lack the basic ability of willingness, they should not be given any moral consideration.
The second type of theories are the direct but unequal theories which postulate that if an entity is sentient, it has a moral status. Since animals are sentient, therefore, they have a moral status, but these theories also make it clear that this direct moral status is not equal to that of a human being due to the lack of conscience ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"YbAGaiBC","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Ethics, 2014)","plainCitation":"(Ethics, 2014)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":115,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/DTmO0ro3/items/XFCMNU6D"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/DTmO0ro3/items/XFCMNU6D"],"itemData":{"id":115,"type":"post-weblog","title":"Rights theories: Different positions","container-title":"Animal Ethics","abstract":"Moral rights are conceived of as rights that individuals are born with and have regardless of whether or not they have legal rights to protect them.","URL":"https://www.animal-ethics.org/rights-theories-different-positions/","title-short":"Rights theories","author":[{"family":"Ethics","given":"Animal"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2014",3,25]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",11,30]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Ethics, 2014).
The third and final compartmentalization goes by the name of direct and equal theory. Utilitarian approaches to the question of animal rights as proposed by Peter Singer consist of the idea that the animals should also be considered as stakeholders when calculating the greatest good for the society using the classical utilitarian principle ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"l5PtjDGQ","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":113,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/DTmO0ro3/items/JGKQS35X"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/DTmO0ro3/items/JGKQS35X"],"itemData":{"id":113,"type":"webpage","title":"Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy","URL":"https://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SH1b","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",11,30]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”, n.d.). On the other hand, there are animal rights activists who make the case that animals have the same rights that human beings have. They associate themselves with the theory of inherent value that any entity which is alive and has a conscience has an inherent value and any entity with inherent value must be shown respect.
The post-enlightenment era has seen many movements with regards to the rights of animals making one gorilla “Harambe” famous. The animal rights movements in the post-enlightenment era are most commonly motivated by emotion and the sense of being cool. Instead of having any genuine concern about animal rights or any deeper philosophical understanding, most people take part in the movements purely because it is considered trendy and cool.
In my opinion, the most fundamental problem regarding this issue is the problem of value. What characteristics make an entity valuable? If that characteristic is life itself, then in that case, plants and animals will be assumed to be as valuable as humans. A problem will then arise as to what should human beings feed on? On the same canvas, animals feed on plants most of the time and some animals feed on other animals, so the concept of respect is generally not seen in nature. But this point can be argued against by saying that animals and plants do not have rationality and so they should not be considered morally responsible for their actions. On the same wavelength though, this line of argument can backfire to suggest that morality is not observed in nature so why should we try to make moral decisions.
In my opinion, the thing that makes an entity valuable is the existence of certain properties such as life, conscious experience, and rationality. Since plants only have life, so they will be tier 1 valuable. Animals have life and conscious experience thus they are tier 2 valuable. Similarly, human beings possess all of the above-mentioned properties thus human beings are the most valuable.
I believe that animal rights should be extended as far as we should not kill them just for fun. But when it comes to using them for the benefit of humanity, we should not refrain from it either. A balanced approach should be adopted for animal rights. Making extreme cases, both for and against animal rights can result in the destruction of the ecosystem as we know it today. Employing extreme human rights can result in the problems of overpopulation, whereas, extreme hunting can cause species to go extinct. I believe that we should use animals as much as it is required, and not merely for fun. From all of the theories mentioned above, my opinion will probably be most in line with the set of direct and unequal theories. I am also passionately in favor of the abolishment of zoos, as they fringe on the animal’s right to freedom without serving a purpose.
However, occasions can come when human rights and animal rights can come face to face. In my opinion, human rights should be given preference over animal rights at all times. For example, if time comes when an animal starts attacking individuals and we have two options, either see him kill people or shoot him dead, I would not think twice to suggest that the said animal should be shot and killed.
In my understanding of the issue, due to cultural and ethnic differences, the same understanding of animal rights cannot be implemented worldwide. Cultural differences between different geographical locations should be taken into account when considering the understanding of animal rights for that location. I believe that a robust legislation should be passed regarding the killing of animals who do not harm human beings and who do not serve any purpose in everyday human life either. Rules should be made to preserve their lives and people not acting in accordance should be fined. As far as the animals that do serve a purpose in human lives, they should be taken care of in farms and fields. They should not be coerced to perform better, for example, there were reports that hens were made to give eggs twice a day by creating an illusion of the morning twice a day. Such acts should be criminalized.
As far as the animals that cause harm to humans, they should be kept away from the population, i.e. in their natural habitats. African countries such as South Africa have dealt with the issue by not only separating population from such animals but they have also boosted their tourism industry by creating a unique safari experience in which humans get to visit natural habitats of harmful animals. Other countries should take that as an example and follow their lead in the solution of this issue.
References
ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SH1b
Ethics, A. (2014, March 25). Rights theories: Different positions. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from Animal Ethics website: https://www.animal-ethics.org/rights-theories-different-positions/
Pohl, A. (2015, August 10). Theories on Animals and Ethics | Office of the Vice President for Research. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://ovpr.uchc.edu/services/rics/animal/iacuc/ethics/theories/
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024