Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Animal rights and human morality
Animal and morality
Animal and morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Animal rights and human morality
As the article says, Regan’s theory requires us to divide all living things into two categories. Firstly, those that have inherent value have the same basic rights that humans have and secondly those do not have inherent value have no moral right. Personally, I disagree quite strongly with this notion, I feel that all animals, including humans have a combination of inherent value and instrumental value and that this combination is largely dependent on where the animals lies on the food chain. I say food chain because I strongly disagree with using animals for other reasons such as for fur and carpets as I feel it is immoral to gain utility from animals for decorative purposes. For example, a human would have close to 100% inherent value and …show more content…
Infant human beings do not have the same reasoning capabilities as a fully grown adult, and therefore do not have the same level of inherent value of mature humans. This does not mean that we should value them less, it only means that they must grow before they can have the same inherent value as us. Tiffany Ahn | December 8, 2014 at 9:10 pm | Log in to Reply
Saahil – nice job evaluating Regan’s theory on inherent values and where the distinction lies. I completely agree with you that there shouldn’t be any “correlation between age and inherent value.” In regards to Caroline’s comment about infant humans beings not having the same “reasoning capabilities as a fully grown adult, and therefore do not have the same level of inherent value of mature humans,” I disagree because the human beings have the potential to grow into the adult. Their inherent value does not grow, it remains constant in the being whether it is young or old. In the Abbate article, she emphasizes the need to cautious; it is not that these sentient beings aren’t fully developed yet, but that the gray lines that differentiate between things that should or shouldn’t be valued are too
In the article, Tardiff begins by referencing Tom Reagan in his book The Case for Animal Rights, that there are five qualifications of an acceptable moral theory, including “Consistency, scope, precision, conformity to reflective intuition, and simplicity.” He then goes on to illustrate a few hypothetical situations in order to establish uncontroversial moral
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.
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”....
The exponential rise in earth’s human population since the industrial revolution has put a heightened pressure on food production word wide. The global population reached approximately 7.2 billion in 2013 (United Nation News Centre, 2013) and consequentially the requirement for eggs and poultry has also substantially increased (Pluhar, 2010). As a result of this elevated demand for food, there has been a shift in the way agricultural practices operate to produce the large quantities of meat and eggs necessary to feed the population. The intensive farming method of animal husbandry has become quite a controversial issue and caused apprehension amongst many different factions of society. These concerns relate to how high density farming practices result in dangers associated with environmental impacts, human health and non-human welfare. Animal welfare/animal rights groups argue that the conditions in which the animals live are cruel and abhorrent. This notion of cruelty invites debate surrounding the complex and multi-faceted issue of the moral and ethical obligations humans have in respect to other animals. The issue of battery hen farming is further confounded by economic, social, political, and food security issues. For these reasons the issue warrants further investigation. The main focus of the essay is to explore the moral and ethical issues which humans have towards non-human animals using battery hens as a case study to highlight the topic. Ultimately concluding that public opinion seems to be growing in favour of the banning of battery hens.
In his essay “Religion and Animal Rights," the writer Tom Regan maintains the place that animals are "subjects-of-a-life”, like humans. If we value all beings regardless of the degree of human rationality that are able to act, we must also attribute to animals or as it is called non-human animals as well. All practices involving abuse of animals should be abolished. The animals have an intrinsic value as humans, and stresses that Christian theology has brought unbridled land on the brink of an ecological catastrophe.
...xplanations on baby morality. While some argue it is Gods good telling you to act moral in an altruistic manner, others argue humans do it to look attractive to others. I would not have thought of these reasons behind a baby displaying acts of moral if I had only read the primary source.
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).
Sentientism can be described as all individual beings who can feel or suffer have a moral value. Tom Regan’s argument that being a “subject of a life” is really the key factor in determining moral rights, as opposed to being a person with a level of intelligence above non-human animals. Eco-centrism can be described as the ecosystem is at the center of all decisions and life. Eco-centrism is a refusal to use human beings as the measure by which to value others. An individual human has no more individual value than any other animal or that of nature.
Regan’s view on animal rights is much more empathetic than Cohen’s. The biggest aspect of his argument is the inherent rights view, which states that we have direct duties to all individuals, both humans and animals, because they have rights. Regan believes that we have these direct duties to all “experiencing subjects of a life”. This entails individuals that are capable of feeling emotions and the effects of living. Such beings have
Many people think that animals lives don’t matter. From PETA’s article “Why animal rights” says “Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being’s rights, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’””. Really, just because they didn’t invent corn dogs doesn't mean they don’t matter. Animal rights is about animals being treated better. Just because they don’t have a purpose to humans, doesn't mean that they don’t matter. They wouldn’t be animals if they weren’t alive. And i’m pretty sure you don’t want your life to end for no reason. So wouldn’t animals. Imagine this: you get thrown into this large truck. You get driven to a large
Do you think animals need a “Bill of Rights”?. Of course I think that they should make a Bill of Right for the animals. The reason for that is that they are been mistreated really bad. Some of the animals are been experimented and put into small cages where they can fit. They also capture them and send them to a zoo where they will get mistreated. People don’t care of them anymore, they think that they can do anything with them and they won’t feel any pain when they hurt them.
Before learning about early childhood in this class I never realized all the way children at such a young age are developing. From the second part of this course I learned how much children are developing at the early childhood stage. I never realized children learn how about their emotions, having empathy, and self-concept at such a young age. I thought children had it easy. They play with friends, start school, and just be kids. One important thing that stood out to me in this chapter is that children’s self-esteem starts at this stage. According to Berk (2012), “self-esteem is the judgments we make about our own worth and the feelings associated with those judgments (p. 366)”. Self-esteem is very important for a child to have and it can
Should animals have the same rights as humans? The answer is simply an opinion, but before someone decides whether or not animals have rights they must first take into consideration a few things. First, one must decide what the term “rights” is referring to: moral rights or legal rights. Secondly, one must determine what the term animal is referring to: are humans considered animals? Thirdly, one must ask are animals’ sentient beings: Can animals feel pain and suffer? The next element is to take into consideration is all of the beneficial and atrocious aspects of animal testing, and then decide if the beneficial aspects outweigh the atrocious aspects or vice-versa. The final step is to decide if there is a middle ground to the argument: Can animals have rights
will argue in favour of Russow’s claim that the aesthetic value we have for a species is actually the aesthetic value we have for individuals of that species.
Value is the wish that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or utility of something or principles or standards of behaviour; one's opinion of what is significant in life . As human beings, there’s things we value as such, as material and physical values, economic values, moral values, societal values, political values, aesthetical values, spiritual values and rational values. As humans, we would like to think we are in charge of our own values and what is worthy of our desires (instrumental values). Merely this is incorrect for there’s intrinsic values, values that are valuable for the grounds of their nature such as life. For lesson, our human body demands water, why do we drink water because we need to life, but why do we need to life?