Do Animals Have Moral Standing Analysis

Do animals have rights and moral standing? I believe that they do. Peter Carruthers does not. He is completely against the moral standing of animals. I will be explaining his views, and arguing against them showing why animals should have moral standing.

Carruthers specifically says this:

“I shall argue that the lives and sufferings of non-human animals make no direct moral claims on us. At the same time I shall argue that the sufferings of human infants and senile old people do make such claims on us. In short: I shall argue that no animals possess moral standing, while arguing all human beings possess such standing.” (Carruthers, WEB p. 39)

He believes that animals can suffer and feel pain and emotions, just as humans can, but he

doesn’t believe that animals are rational agents. A rational agent is something or someone that is able to make decisions for themselves, and can follow a set of variables and choose the decision with the best outcome for the situation.
In his basic case he explains how all rational agents have standing, but he does mention that senile adults and babies are not considered rational agents yet they still receive moral standing.

He says that because people care deeply about their elders and the young, soon to be rational agents, that they automatically get this so called moral standing. It’s their “protection” if you will, because they would be considered at risk without it.

Carruthers later says:

“… Attachment to pets is rarely so deep as attachments to relatives, in any case. Hence people should have little difficulty in coming to accept that pets can only be accorded the sorts of protections granted to other items of private property.” (Carruthers, WEB p. 47)

[Add in his reasoning behind this just for a little more background possibly]

As I mentioned, I disagree with Carruthers reasoning. First and foremost, I think he contradicts himself. He says that animals are capable of suffering and feeling pain and emotions at a conscious level. So if they are capable of that, just as humans are, then why are they not considered rational agents with moral standing? They may be different from us in many ways, but if you break it down at a really basic level there are similarities. [Try to explain these similarities if

possible]
He also gives moral standing to senile adults and babies, who can’t make their own decisions. Yes babies have the possibility of becoming rational agents once they grow, and senile adults were once able to make their own decisions but at this point in their lives they are not. In all intensive purposes they are equal to an animal at this stage in their lives, so if they get moral standing animals should as well. Carruthers says that because we care about our elders and babies that is why they are granted this moral standing. It is a form of protection for them. I care about my pets, and all animals, just as deeply as I do humans in most cases so therefore I think this should automatically grant them moral standing for their protection as well.
Carruthers would try and reject my arguments. He would probably say something along the lines of how you can’t compare senile adults and babies to animals because their level of thought process is entirely different. He could also say that even though people care about their pets and animals, if they were put in a situation where they had to either save a human or a pet the human would come out on top. I think this would be insufficient to overcome my objections because while it may be true for some humans it isn’t true for all. I am sure that someone that has a strong bond with a pet, or a service dog would choose the dog over a human in some situations. And yes even though our thought processes may be different that still doesn’t change the fact that animals have feelings. It shouldn’t take away their moral standing. [Have one or two more examples of how he would respond to my arguments]
Overall Carruthers made some good points, but I truly believe he is wrong as I show in my objections to his arguments. Animals are a huge part of many people’s lives, including mine, and because of this they should definitely be awarded moral standing.