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.
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.
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.
As humans we rely both on plants and animals to be able to take care of us. “…many of us still see other animals as bodily things with no mind or spirit” (McFague, 119). I have always interpreted other creation as something that was made for our benefit, so that humans could be fed and replenished. While it does serve this purpose, it is important to realize that this comes from God and that having this amenity should not be abused. “On our planet we are the self-conscious aspect of the body of God, the part of the divine body able to work with God, the spirit who creates and redeems us, to bring about the liberation and healing of the earth and all its creatures” (McFague, 124). These beings should be taken care of because they too come from God, and I think that part of our job is to be able to care for other creatures and treat them well. I’m not against killing animals for meat, as long as it does not cause the animal to endure too much pain. However, I cannot stand the thought of animal abuse and I feel as though that is something that should not be tolerated whether the animals are raised to be killed or not. “While our analysis of ecological sin will focus on the more neglected areas of our relations with other animals and nature, proper relations with our nearest and dearest kin, our own species, must be first in consideration and importance” (McFague, 116-117). What she is saying here is significant. Even though it is crucial for us to care for the plants and animals on this planet for the wellbeing of humans, we have to consider the needs of our own species first. I think that we cannot be greedy or over consumptive, but we must take what we need and only that. It isn’t quite that simple, but living a life as God would want one to, it seems to me that would allow for that
...nimal rights yet I do question myself where to draw the line. I do not condone violence or harm against animals, yet I shudder at the thought of a mice plague and feel saddened by the extinction of our native animals by ‘feral’ or pest species. Is it right to kill one species to save another? I am appalled by the idea of ‘circus’ animals yet I will attend the horse races every summer for my entertainment. I think Tom Regan’s argument and reasoning for animal rights was extremely effective at making whoever is reading the essay question his or her own moral standards. Reading the essay made me delve into my own beliefs, morals and values which I think is incredibly important. To form new attitudes as a society it is important we start questioning how we view the lives of others, do we see animals as a resource to be exploited or as equals with rights just like we do?
Expanding this thought process, the moral thinking that animal suffering should be included in rational decision making, past the realm of simply whether or not eating animals is ethically wrong leads us to other places where animal suffering may prove helpful to human life. This such place being examined is the medical experimentation field. Animals are being bred and created just to usually live short, painful lives. The animals are treated with varying degrees of concern for their well being. The mass suffering of the animals, not just for a short time remember usually the suffering lasts for years, in some eyes are seen is seen as a necessary evil on the road to medical and scientific development. This thought process falling from the hierarchy of species that has ingrained itself in human minds, the idea that humans are the most important and worthy, and thus any suffering of “inferior creatures” should not be considered when there is the possibility for advancement. This idea however is a flaw in moral
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.
In this article Robison makes her point that animal cruelty is wrong and that people should be more aware of it. Although she failed to apply reliable sources in her article, her main points clearly show her strong focus on the value of animals. All caring people must surely agree that protecting animal life is a noble endeavor.
As I have progressed through this class, my already strong interest in animal ethics has grown substantially. The animal narratives that we have read for this course and their discussion have prompted me to think more deeply about mankind’s treatment of our fellow animals, including how my actions impact Earth’s countless other creatures. It is all too easy to separate one’s ethical perspective and personal philosophy from one’s actions, and so after coming to the conclusion that meat was not something that was worth killing for to me, I became a vegetarian. The trigger for this change (one that I had attempted before, I might add) was in the many stories of animal narratives and their inseparable discussion of the morality in how we treat animals. I will discuss the messages and lessons that the readings have presented on animal ethics, particularly in The Island of Doctor Moreau, The Dead Body and the Living Brain, Rachel in Love, My Friend the Pig, and It Was a Different Day When They Killed the Pig. These stories are particularly relevant to the topic of animal ethics and what constitutes moral treatment of animals, each carrying important lessons on different facets the vast subject of animal ethics.
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.
...dable, then the harm should be little and justified. It is clear that eating meat is morally unjustified because animals have a moral choice, but they are incapable of controlling their behavior. This leads to a one sided argument because only humans have the ability to make moral choices. Thus, humans should make choices that treat animals with dignity, conserve the environment, safeguard animal’s rights, do not cause pains to animals, and are morally, religiously, and legally right. By making such decisions, humans will not be morally justified to take meet because previous paragraphs discuss every point mentioned in the previous sentence. For instance, it is clear that animals are moral patients, and humans should use their position as moral agents to make a choice of not eating meat. Therefore, it sufficed to deduce that it is morally impermissible to eat meat.
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
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).
Nussbaum, MC 2006, ‘The moral status of animals’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 3, pp. 1-6.
Animals have their own rights as do to humans and we should respect that and give them the same respect we give each other. Animals deserve to be given those same basic rights as humans. All humans are considered equal and ethical principles and legal statutes should protect the rights of animals to live according to their own nature and remain free from exploitation. This paper is going to argue that animals deserve to have the same rights as humans and therefore, we don’t have the right to kill or harm them in any way. The premises are the following: animals are living things thus they are valuable sentient beings, animals have feeling just like humans, and animals feel pain therefore animal suffering is wrong. 2 sources I will be using for my research are “The Fight for Animal Rights” by Jamie Aronson, an article that presents an argument in favour of animal rights. It also discusses the counter argument – opponents of animal rights argue that animals have less value than humans, and as a result, are undeserving of rights. Also I will be using “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer. This book shows many aspects; that all animals are equal is the first argument or why the ethical principle on which human equality rests requires us to extend equal consideration to animals too.
It is the notion of our time that non-human animals exist for the advancement of the human species. In whatever field -- cookery, fashion, blood-sports -- it is held that we can only be concerned with animals as far as human interests exist. There may be some sympathy for those animals, as to limit practices which cause excruciating suffering, but those may only be limited if they are brought to public light, and if legislators receive enough pressure from the public to change.