In this essay, I will discuss if our actions towards animals are immoral. McGinn discusses his reasons shortly, assuming that he is correct. He claims that, “we have a moral duty to relieve the suffering, and cease the killing, of the animals with which we have dealings” (McGinn 150). This is the structure of his argument:
(1) It is morally wrong to cause the suffering and death of animals unnecessarily
(2) We do cause the suffering of and death of animals unnecessarily.
Therefore:
(3) What we do to animals is morally wrong.
As my thesis, I will reject his claim, and his arguments that support such claim; I shall call his allegation “Claim X”. Though objecting to this claim seems intuitively horrendous, I belief that his argument does not demonstrate the correct grounds for readers to be able to empathize with his views. In this paper, I will critically object to McGinn’s fundamental argument, by illustrating the flaws of his supporting claims. After his supporting claims are seen as fallacious, I shall demystify such key argument. Finally, to finish on a good note, I will propose an alternative view on the matter.
To start, I want to first define the terms, as he has on his article. By the term “suffering”, McGinn defines them as the following: “Eating meat, hunting, vivisection, and fur coats, and the like” (McGinns 151). For “the like”, I propose he meant, other activities such as owning animals, using them for entertainment, or work. To support his argument, he poses the following three points. First, he asserts that our uses of animals do not justify our means. Second, he believes that it is our moral duty to not cause any unnecessary suffering on animals. Third and last, he claims that it is erroneous to think of a...
... middle of paper ...
... destroy the environment by destroying the animals. If it is our moral duty to preserve the environment, then it is our moral duty to preserve the species that come with it. Therefore, it is morally incorrect to allow those species to be used as production material.
Wrapping up, McGinn’s “Claim X” fails, it is not our duty to relieve the suffering and stop the killing of animals, which we have dealings with. “Claim X” fails because, McGinn’s supporting points do not have enough strength to support the three-premise argument. Since the argument for “Claim X” is not sustained, we are susceptible to believe that our duty towards animals end when we restrain from abusive, violent, or destructive behavior; but not when animals provide us with benefits that are intrinsic to them. In conclusion, our current interactions with animals do not portray an immoral behavior.
To begin with, Regan argues that people tend to believe that animals are 'unaware' of pain, and because humans are capable of announcing when in pain, it is thus considered morally wrong to harm a human being, than an animal. This type of thinking falls under the indirect duty views, which suggests that animals have no connected relationship, or direct link to humans, unlike humans have to their own species. Regan explains that disregarding animals as being capable of experiencing pain is morally wrong in itself, as is the indirect duty views (1989).
It is estimated that more than 1 million people die annually in the United States from heart disease and cancer combined (Leading Causes of Death). What if all of those human lives could have been saved by sacrificing relatively few animals? Conservationists and animal rights activists always have the best of intentions for animals and the environment. They believe that animals should never have to suffer because of the choices human beings make. This view can be unrealistic in many situations. Jane Goodall’s A Question of Ethics was a very emotional and Rogerian style essay, but I found it lacked the supporting facts and credibility that can be found in Heloisa Sabin’s aggressive “classic” styled essay Animal research Saves Human Lives.
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 concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
The essay “Ill-gotten Gains” first appeared in a book called ‘Health Care Ethics’ and was written by Tom Regan, a renowned philosopher, author and animal rights advocate. The essay appeared again in Tom Regan’s best known book called ‘The Case for Animal Rights’ which states Regan’s beliefs regarding animal rights and provides a sound argument as to why animals should not be exploited for our own gain. Tom Regan believes all animal use that benefits humans is morally unacceptable, including for food, entertainment, labour, experiments and research. “Ill-gotten Gains” argues that to be on the right moral path we need to view all individuals with inherent value as a ‘subject of a life’. Regan argues that any practice in which a ‘subject of life’ is used as a resource is immoral, not because of emotion, but because of reason.
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
What do we, as humans have to do in order to give nonhuman animals the proper treatment and equal moral consideration as we owe for other humans? Some, such as Jeremy Bentham would address that, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (99). Other moral philosophers, like Henry Sidgwick, however reject the theory of utilitarianism thinking that is pleasure all that really matters and are consequences all that matters (111-112)? Humans use nonhuman animals for one purpose; pleasure from using their skins for luxury goods. In this paper, I will explain and examine what Jeremy Bentham is trying explain in his argument, and will attempt to show that his argument is a plausible one, by replying an objection against his utilitarian view.
Ascione’s (1993) definition of animal cruelty is defined as “socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of an animal” exclusive of socially condoned behavior, such as legal hunting and certain agricultural and veterinary practices. Not all violent individuals have been previously cruel to animals but studies have shown that a great number of them have exhibited this behavior. A great majority of the literature calls for a better understandin...
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Call Number: HV4711.A5751992. Morris, Richard Knowles, and Michael W. Fox, eds. On the Fifth Day, Animal Rights. and Human Ethics.
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A
Animal welfare is a fairly recent, yet troubling argument in society. This subject is a strong argument on a variety of opinions. Animal welfare has become a major issue and has grown internationally. The human concern and the safety and rights of animals is the meaning of the concept of animal welfare. Through decades of animal welfare, people fight to prevent the action of animal cruelty and bring help towards animal rights.
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we