StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

What duties, if any, do we have to non-human animals - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
If animals are no longer killed for food, this raises another key moral question concerning duty, essentially the duty of responsibility. Domesticated animals may be ill equipped with the skills to return to the wild. …
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER94.5% of users find it useful
What duties, if any, do we have to non-human animals
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "What duties, if any, do we have to non-human animals"

What duties, if any, do we have to non-human animals? This paper will address what duties, if any, do we have to non-human animals? The main point it will tackle is that raised by the moral philosopher Peter Singer who asks: ‘is it right, for example to think that it is morally quite legitimate to eat non-human animals?’1 In examining theories by Singer, McMahan, Warnock, Spira and Benson regarding the eating of non-human animals, consideration will also be given to the impact this may have on moral arguments regarding ‘duty’ in vivisection, and industries such as cosmetics, detergents and pharmaceuticals. Peter Singer believes chimpanzees and apes, should be granted ‘the right to life, to liberty and to protection from torture,’2 because they have autonomy like humans. Singer’s term ‘speciesists’ is used for people who ‘regard human beings as intrinsically more valuable than members of other species.’3 Singer purports to believe in equality between species, but Benson argues this is false ‘because of the relationships with other individuals which are inseparable from belonging to the same species.’4 Singer contradictiously suggests that chimps and apes have a greater level of consiousness, compared to other non-human animals. In an article and the book Ethics into Action, Singer discusses Henry Spira who campaigned to reduce animal suffering related to the Draize and LD50 tests. Spira’s advertising campaign was criticized for using a Beagle to gain an emotive response; it was suggested if a rodent appeared in the advert people would not have been so outraged. Spira pointed to the importance of ‘not how popular is an animal, but can it tell the difference between pain and pleasure?’5 Singer discusses Kant’s work and states that we ‘find moral worth only when duty is done for duty’s sake.’6 What is meant by this relates to the advertising, in that if people do their duty out of sympathy or shame, they wouldn’t be doing their duty for the sake of believing and feeling it to be true. Gary L. Francione criticises Peter Singer’s work, suggesting that whilst it contains an element of reform for animal-welfare, it ‘makes people feel better about animal uses, but does not actually achieve its proper aim of protecting animals.’7 Francione argues for full abolition of animal use, claiming that because animals are sentient beings this should enable them to have full moral and legal rights. Professor of Philosophy, Jeff McMahan, discusses animals raised in good conditions, then killed humanely, for human consumption and terms this ‘benign carnivorism.’8 McMahan states the main premise of benign carnivorism’s moral philosophical argument, is that it’s preferable animals live in a contented manner, with no suffering (up until their humane death), than to not have existed at all. Mary Warnock claims animals ‘should be used for the sake of human society,’9 she lists activities such as horse riding; sledging; the food and clothing they provide. This argument is favourable to those wishing to consume meat, though McMahan points out the illogical flaw that: ‘there are no individuals who never exist.’10 A comparative sense of ‘well-being’ is made between non-human animals and humans. Whilst non-human animals can appear to show emotion; other aspects of human life such as success, artistic endeavours, wisdom, meaningful connections to others, the ability to think rationally and appreciation of beauty aren’t always as easy to perceive in non-human animals. McMahan suggests that non-human animals lack a self-awareness for the future, claiming that they ‘do not…have desires or intentions or ambitions…that would be frustrated by death,’11 thus making it easier to justify killing them. McMahan’s argument makes interesting comparison to humans but his key premise throughout is that animals do not have the same rights as humans they have lesser rights; humans constantly place a higher value on human life. If non-human animals were seen to have a desire to live, it would be much harder for humans to eat them. Neither Singer, nor McMahan seem to explore the lack of ability to articulate in non-human animals, which would make for a key factor to express thought. Whilst never overtly stated by McMahan, it is implied that humans do have an alternative food-source; it is not necessary to kill animals in order to survive. McMahan carefully considers the time it takes for humans to consume meat, and the pleasure gained from that and states that it is unlikely this pleasure, ‘could outweigh all the good that an animal’s life might contain over several years.’12 He puts forward a compelling argument that animals derive pleasure from eating and other activities. This would seem to suggest a strong and convincing argument for the fact that humans have a duty to stop consuming non-human animals; the killing cannot be justified. If animals are no longer killed for food, this raises another key moral question concerning duty, essentially the duty of responsibility. Domesticated animals may be ill equipped with the skills to return to the wild. McMahon states: ‘to cause an individual to exist in a vulnerable and dependent condition is arguably to make oneself liable to certain duties of care.’13 The suggestion seems to be don’t raise non-human animals for meat in the first place. If you have done so, then stop immediately and assume the correct duty of care for the animal. Spira argues that eating animals also has a further detrimental impact, whilst, ‘six billion animals are being consumed for food’14 it would be impossible to stop animal testing for medical research; cosmetics and detergents etc because it’s illogical to allow animals to be killed for one cause, but not another. Benson points out that Singer and Spira’s suggestion that people should give up meat, but not any other products such as pharmaceuticals is ‘unbalanced.’15 In conclusion, the research above suggests that any arguments put forward for eating animals, do not stand up against moral philosophical debates; the arguments are weak and illogical. Harlan B. Miller makes a valid point when he suggests: ‘‘the ethical incoherence of our customary treatment of nonhumans has been demonstrated time and time again.’16 Whilst many people believe they have a moral duty to prevent animal cruelty and suffering; this seems to come with a disclaimer of: ‘providing it doesn’t impact adversely on humans.’ People have varying degrees of how much of a ‘duty’ they feel to non-human animals; Singer believes we have a duty to non-human animals with ‘self-awareness.’17 The level of consciousness plays a key factor in determining moral duties towards non-human animals, unfortunately, and returning to Singer, humans are still classed as a superior species. Francione argues for full abolition of non-human animal use, to fulfil our duty to animals who should have full moral and legal rights. Spira’s work was criticised for taking a accommodationist approach, but an overnight phenomenon of outright abolition is sometimes difficult to achieve. Spira believed in a duty to relieve suffering for non-human animals, and if this was achieved for initially a few, this had to be better than none. The agreed duty amongst all writers would be to minimize animal suffering, even amongst those who McMahon terms ‘benign carnivores.’ The majority consensus from the writers discussed, would suggest we have a moral duty to cease to consume meat. In the larger scheme we have a duty to cease breeding animals for meat, and that there is of course a duty of care for existing animals. The suggestion is that by ceasing to eat meat, this would also lessen the suffering of animals for other uses such as animal testing, as less argument could me made for it if this was the only reason for breeding animals, non-human animals would become on a more equal status to humans. Word Count – 1267. Works Cited BENSON, John. Duty and the Beast, Philosophy, 206 (53), Oct. 1978: 529-549. MCMAHAN, Jeff. Eating Animals the Nice Way, Daedalus 137, 2008: 66-76 PYNES, Christopher A. review of Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation by Gary L. Francione, New York, Columbia University Press, 2008, in The Quarterly Review of Biology, 3(84), Sept. 2009: 283. SINGER, Peter. A Companion to Ethics. London & New York, Wiley-Blackwell, 1993. SINGER, Peter. Rights and Wrongs in Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science, 437, Sept. 2005: 20-22. SINGER, Peter. Henry Spira’s Search for Common Ground on Animal Testing, in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 1999, 1 (8): 9-22. SINGER, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999. SPIRA, Henry. [interview], Newsletter of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, 1993, 10 (1): 4-5. WARNOCK, Mary. The Ethics of Being Beastly to Animals, in The Times (London: UK), January 24, 2001: 2. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“What duties, if any, do we have to non-human animals Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/environmental-studies/1405802-what-duties-if-any-do-we-have-to-non-human-animals
(What Duties, If Any, Do We Have to Non-Human Animals Essay)
https://studentshare.org/environmental-studies/1405802-what-duties-if-any-do-we-have-to-non-human-animals.
“What Duties, If Any, Do We Have to Non-Human Animals Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/environmental-studies/1405802-what-duties-if-any-do-we-have-to-non-human-animals.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF What duties, if any, do we have to non-human animals

Indirect Theories and Moral Equality Theories on Kindness to Non-Human Animals

Indirect Theories and Moral Equality Theories on Kindness to non-human animals According to Immanuel Kant, humans have duties to be kind to animals because these “duties towards animals…are indirect duties towards mankind” ( 64 ).... … Name Class Instructor Date Indirect Theories and Moral Equality Theories on Kindness to non-human animals According to Immanuel Kant, humans have duties to be kind to animals because these “duties towards animals…are indirect duties towards mankind” ( 64 )....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

Animal Cruelty Speech

Your name Instructor A Speech on Animal Cruelty Introduction: animals cannot speak for themselves/why Animal Cruelty is wrong Just like human beings, animals need to be treated with tenderness and care.... Unfortunately though, there are many instances where animals are treated with extreme cruelty.... hellip; Whether domestic or wild, animals deserve to be given attention.... Besides fighting for an end in anima cruelty, these groups are concerned with the formulation of policies to help animal cruelty, animal health, and nutrition and well as proper slaughtering of animals....
4 Pages (1000 words) Speech or Presentation

The Process of Evolution and the Animal Rights

Outline: Introduction: I:The evolution Argument A: Humans as the most highly evolved B: Discussion of what this “dominion” or evolutionary status denotes II: Rights A: The origins of rights B: Thinking and self actualization a uniquely human quality III: Disparity and differences A: No emotions B: No thoughts C: Ultimately comparing two dissimilar entities IV: The custodianship of domesticated animals A: If animal rights existed fully, then these would be extinct B: Humans have moral and ethical duties to provide protection and furtherance of nature V: Rights A: animals cannot have rights due to the fact that they do not have reciprocal duties B: Without duties, rights are meaningless and… cannot have any merit VI: Slippery Slope Argument A: animals rights – plant rights?...
6 Pages (1500 words) Research Paper

Utilitarianism versus Kant on the Treatment of Nonhuman Animals

hellip; The author states that non-human animals are ought to be treated the same way as human beings are treated in order to consider those actions right or wrong.... In the paper “Utilitarianism versus Kant on the Treatment of Nonhuman animals” the author analyzes the principle of utility, which states that behaviors or actions are said to be right if they promote pleasure and happiness and they are wrong if they produce pain or unhappiness.... According to the principle of utility humans ought to have moral obligations to animals, that is, we should not mistreat animals as this mistreatment encourages the development of wrong moral character....
4 Pages (1000 words) Assignment

Views of Tom Regan on Animal Rights as Compared to the Utilitarian View of Animal Rights

This is why utilitarianism argues that non-human animals are also subjected to moral duties and people have to ensure that their actions are causing pleasure not only to humans but also to non-human animals (Brooman, 1997).... According to his theory, when value is given to all other humans regardless of their mental and rational abilities then the same value should be ascribed to the non-human animals as well.... Regan rejects this view and argues that humans gain the value and respect regardless of their rationality as with infants and those who are mentally instable thus non-human animals are also subjected to the same value and respect regardless of their rationality....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

The Desire to Equalize Animals in Rights with Humans - Absurdity or the Norm

The author of the paper "The Desire to Equalize animals in Rights with Humans - Absurdity or the Norm?... highly appreciates the role of animals in people's lives, but considers excessive the intention of some animal rights advocates to equalize the rights of the latter with human rights.... This is of course due to the inherent belief that many individuals have that animals cannot be considered as sentient beings; therefore, extending any form of rights or the expectation thereof, is tantamount to extending rights to an unconscious object....
6 Pages (1500 words) Term Paper

Should Animals Be Used for Scientific Experiments

Human is not so vulnerable creatures that they have to depend on animals to get tested for their response to drugs.... The method is unreliable, inhuman and unjustified … Humans already are killing animals or using them for different purposes like food, meat but that is a need but testing for drugs on thousands of animals is not a need.... he basic justification given to this statement is that if human use animals for specific purposes like food, transportation, leather etc then why can't they be used for experiments which are beneficial for the humans in the end....
10 Pages (2500 words) Research Paper

Should Animals Have Rights Like Humans Do

… The paper “Should animals Have Rights like Humans Do?... animals are used by human beings as pets, food or medical research.... According to Regan, animals have rights as human beings do (Regan, 2001).... However, rights do not apply to animals the way they apply to human beings.... The paper “Should animals Have Rights like Humans Do?... animals are used by human beings as pets, food or medical research....
8 Pages (2000 words) Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us