Moral capacity is a common interest shared by humans, it is the basis for intrinsic value and therefore holds more value over sentient.” The ideology of moral capacity was introduced by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. The purpose of this essay is to address the question “Does the ethical status of sentient beings compel us to veganism?” by supporting Kant’s position against Francione’s view of animal rights. The arguments generated in this essay will respond and agree to Kant’s reasoning that humans have no direct duty to animals and therefore can be used as commodities to serve human needs. I will justify opposing arguments to Francione’s position and underline why his theory is flawed. Francione proposes that animal consumption and the use of animal products should be abolished and that veganism is the moral baseline. He rejects the notion …show more content…
Francione suggests that if humans are sentient then they are entitled to moral status. Because animals are also sentient, they too deserve respect and therefore should have rights. We would not inflict purposeful harm on humans because they have rights, so why should it be morally acceptable to perform such actions on animals? Francione believes that animals should be left alone in nature and are not a means to an end. He argues that it is not right to force practices on animals without informed consent. We would not condone the action of a biomedical experiment on humans without consent because of the laws protecting humans. Animals deserve the same respect as they too share similar interests such as to compete for food, produce off spring, care for their young and fight for survival. Francione believes that animals are of equal importance to humans as they possess inherent value because they are sentient. Animals are not objects and should not be considered the means to an end for
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
Alastair Norcross introduces a very controversial case. He compares the actions of Fred as being morally equal to factory farming. Norcross presents the Marginal case and the Analogy argument. There are many objections to his beliefs such as; the suffering of the puppies is intended as a means to Fred’s pleasure, whereas the suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side effect of a system that is a means to the gustatory pleasure of millions. Also, the individual consumers lack the power to put an end to factory farming. And lastly, human beings have a greater moral status than nonhumans. (Norcross, 285) I disagree with Norcross’s statement saying that Fred’s behavior and that of people who consume factory-farmed meat is morally equivalent.
...oss’ paper. Therefore, this objection is not sound because the number of naïve people are rapidly dwindling. The second objection stated that one person has no effect on the factory farming industry, so giving up meat is pointless because the industry is too large to feel the effects of someone converting to vegetarianism. I refuted this objection by saying that, yes, one person alone will not make a difference, but when more and more people become vegetarians, the industry will be forced to respond by producing less animals, therefore, preventing more animal suffering. Although these two objections were strong and valid, I believe I was able to successfully defend Norcross’ argument that factory farming is wrong and cruel.
Although not as strictly addressed, there is still a schism when it comes to the matters of experimentation involving animals. Those in opposition of it see it as being against the will of the animal, because animals have no say in the matter. However, through animal experimentation there has been vast medical advances in hospitals and veterinarians , research has led to cures for various diseases that would normally take many more years to cure, and the use of animals is highly ethical considering what could be the alternative, although there is progress being made to change these measures. This is how animal experimentation is of use to society for humans and animals.
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.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."( Schopenhauer). Vegetarianism and animal rights movement have been crossing each other since 70’s. The meeting point between two is veganism which means strict vegetarianism. Vegetarianism was firstly founded as being formed on ethical issues and then it became mostly based on health reasons. Even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to its early days, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not a mere health choice.
Kant view animals as “mere means” (Kant, 239) because he believes animals has no self consciousness and they cannot judge decisions by their interest. Animals cannot think rationally and logically in a same way as humans so he excluded animals from the moral community where we solely respect those who have rational autonomy and respect their rights. Kant classified human beings and animals differently. He believes that animals are viewed as values or price for human purpose use because animals only behave responding only to their inclination even though they are sentient, and their values are dependent on our human desire only.
“An Animals’ Place” by Michael Pollan is an article that describes our relationship and interactions with animals. The article suggests that the world should switch to a vegetarian diet, due to the mistreatment of animals. The essay includes references from animal rights activists and philosophers. These references are usually logical statement that compare humans and non-human animals in multiple levels, such as intellectual and social.
Vegetarians are uncomfortable with how humans treat animals. Animals are cruelly butchered to meet the high demand and taste for meat in the market. Furthermore, meat-consumers argue that meat based foods are cheaper than plant based foods. According to Christians, man was given the power to dominate over all creatures in the world. Therefore, man has the right to use animals for food (Singer and Mason, 2007). However, it is unjustified for man to treat animals as he wishes because he has the power to rule over animals. This owes to the reality that it is unclear whether man has the right to slaughter animals (haphazardly), but it is clear that humans have a duty to take care of animals. In objection, killing animals is equal to killing fellow humans because both humans and animals have a right to life. Instead of brutally slaying animals, people should consume their products, which...
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why so many people loathe of blood, and why so few people can easily kill and be slaughter animal, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche. Realization the necessity of refraining from meat is especially difficult because people consume it for a long time, and in addition, there is a certain attitude to the meat as to the product that is useful, nourishing and even prestigious. On the other hand, the constant consumption of meat has made the vast majority of people completely emotionless towards it. However, there must be some real and strong reasons for refusal of consumption of meat and as I noticed they were always completely different. So, even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to resemble that of its roots, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not merely a matter of personal health.
In this paper I will look at the argument made by James Rachels in his paper, The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism supporting the view that humans should be vegetarians on moral grounds. I will first outline the basis of Rachels’ argument supporting vegetarianism and his moral objection to using animals as a food source and critique whether it is a good argument. Secondly, I will look at some critiques of this kind of moral argument presented by R. G. Frey in his article, Moral Vegetarianism and the Argument from Pain and Suffering. Finally, I will show why I support the argument made by Frey and why I feel it is the stronger of the two arguments and why I support it.
Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection. Throughout centuries, medical research has been conducted on animals.
Every year, millions of animals experience painful, suffering and death due to results of scientific research as the effects of drugs, medical procedures, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. Basically, animal experimentation has played a dominant role in leading with new findings and human advantages. Animal research has had a main function in many scientific and medical advances in the past decade and is helping in the understanding of several diseases. While most people believe than animal testing is necessary, others are worried about the excessive suffering of this innocent’s creatures. The balance between the rights of animals and their use in medical research is a delicate issue with huge societal assumptions. Nowadays people are trying to understand and take in consideration these social implications based in animals rights. Even though, many people tend to disregard animals that have suffered permanent damage during experimentation time. Many people try to misunderstand the nature of life that animals just have, and are unable to consider the actual laboratory procedures and techniques that these creatures tend to be submitted. Animal experimentation must be excluded because it is an inhumane way of treat animals, it is unethical, and exist safer ways to test products without painful test.
As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention to force anybody to become a vegetarian, but I hope that my argumentation would be strong enough to make some people think about it, at least. In this essay I will try to present this point of view, expressing my personal feelings and showing scientific facts about the problem.