Protecting the Welfare of Nonhuman Animals

1617 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Short note on animals rights

‘Hominum causa omne ius constitutum: all law was established for man’s sake’. Endorsed by early Judaeo-Christian beliefs, holding that humans were created in God’s image having ‘dominion over all animals’. This statement remains true today, despite such assertions being undermined by scientific developments proving homo sapiens to simply be biological entities like any other organism. Such discoveries call into scrutiny the determination of rights on the basis of species and have lead to modern philosophers asserting the contention that animals should be included within the spectrum of rights. Regan, advocating a rights based approach, argues that rights should be afforded to all who possess consciousness, namely ‘mammals aged one year or more’ on the basis that they have inherent value deserving of respect. This differs from Singer’s utilitarian approach where rights should be granted, regardless of species where the capacity to suffer is present. Singer’s interest theory asserts that nonhuman animals should have their rights protected in the same manner as those within the category of marginal cases, claiming that in conferring rights only to humans regardless of autonomy is a form of speciesism akin to racism and other forms of discrimination. Such approaches fail as they often advocate for a lowering of rights conferred to marginal human rights. This essay will conclude that advocating for a Rawlsian contractarian approach placing everyone behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ will protect both the rights of nonhuman animals and marginal humans. The current debate about animal rights dates back to ancient times. Aristotle argued that animals on account of their irrationality only existed for the sake of more rational humans pr... ... middle of paper ... ... of Human and Non-human Animals (Duke University Press 1995) Scruton R, Animal Rights and Wrongs (Continuum 2006) Singer P, Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of our Traditional Ethics, (OUP 1995) Steiner G, Anthropocentrism and Its Discontent: The Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Philosophy (University of Pittsburgh Press 2010) Regan T, The Case For Animal Rights in Peter Singer, In Defence of Animals (Blackwell 1985) Wacks R, Understanding Jurisprudence: An Introduction to Legal Theory (3rd edn, OUP 2012) Websites James Gorman, ‘Considering the Humanity of Non-Humans’ New York Times (New York, 9 December 2013) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/science/considering-the humanity-of-nonhumans.htm?ref=crueltytoanimals Reich D and Lander E, ‘Sequencing the Chimpanzee Genome’ www.genome.gov.uk/pages/research/sequencing/seqproposals/chimpgenome2.pdf

Show More
Related

  • The Case for Animal Rights

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).

    Read More

  • The Ethics of Animal Use in Biomedical Research

    1849 Words  | 4 Pages

    Taylor, Angus. Magpies, monkeys, and morals: what philosophers say about animal liberation. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 1999.

    Read More

  • Animal Sentience and Equal Consideration of Interests

    1012 Words  | 3 Pages

    In his article entitled “Animal Liberation,” Peter Singer suggests that while animals do not have all of the exact same rights as humans, they do have an equal right to the consideration of their interests. This idea comes from the fact that animals are capable of suffering, and therefore have sentience which then follows that they have interests. Singer states “the limit to sentience...is the only defensible boundary of concern for interests of others” (807). By this, he means that the ability to feel is the only grounds for which rights should be assigned because all species of animals, including humans, have the ability, and therefore all animals have the right to not feel suffering and to instead feel pleasure.

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham's Theory Of Utilitarianism And Nonhuman Animals

    1268 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Philosophy and the Morality of Abortion

    1931 Words  | 4 Pages

    To ascribe an entity with moral status ― whether an adult human, infant, foetus, or non-human animal ― is to declare that its treatment by other moral agents is mo...

    Read More

  • Animals Should Get the Same Treatment as Humans

    756 Words  | 2 Pages

    Singer, Peter. “The Case of Animal Liberation.” In Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, 8th edition,edited by Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn (New York: Oxford

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Peter Singer's Speciesism And Moral Status

    736 Words  | 2 Pages

    Men have thought themselves to be the superior species for a long time, but Peter Singer brings a new perspective on the topic in his essay entitled Speciesism and Moral Status. Singer’s new way of thinking of it states that determining morals status requires the comparison between the cognitive abilities of humans and nonhumans. The main points he focusses on in his essay are cognitive capacities between animals and humans with severe mental retardation, religion affecting human’s beliefs of superiority, and finally the ability to suffer and how similar humans and nonhumans are.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer, And Tom Regan, Peter Singer And Aldo Leopold

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists

    Read More

  • Addressing Premature Birth

    1657 Words  | 4 Pages

    Morrison, Nick. "Animal Rights and Wrongs." Northern Echo, 24 Feb. 2001: n. pag. elibrary. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

    Read More

  • Ethics and Morality in Vegetarianism

    1942 Words  | 4 Pages

    Singer P. Animal Liberation. A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals. Avon Books. New York, 1975.

    Read More

  • Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

    2024 Words  | 5 Pages

    Lastly, he argues that sentience is the only characteristic that should be considered in terms of granting animal rights. This leads him to the conclusion that “if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. The principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being”. Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”....

    Read More

  • Argument for Stopping Animal Abuse

    2126 Words  | 5 Pages

    Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:

    Read More

  • Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical?

    2169 Words  | 5 Pages

    A. A. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.

    Read More

  • The Problem With Speciesism

    1118 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Deontology

    1747 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

More about Protecting the Welfare of Nonhuman Animals

Open Document