Animals Rights to their Moral Status
Philosophers and individuals outside the field of philosophy continue to put more effort in trying to understand the issue of animal rights and what actions are rendered cruel to animals. Pro-animal rights activists refer to animals as non-human animals to emphasize the fact that human beings are animals and also create a link between them and humans (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, para 1). An argument that there exists a distinguishing factor that separates human beings from the rest of the living things is proposed by opponents of animal rights. Such opponents make efforts to justify human practices that cause pain, suffering, discomfort and at times death to the non-human animals. They do this in an effort to make grand moral waiver to human beings actions towards the non-human animals. Some philosophers argue that there is no philosophical defense or basis for human beings to exercise or deny moral consideration to animals thus contributing to the long standing conflict (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, para.1).
Do animals have moral feelings
The encyclopedia of philosophy describes a morally considerable creature as one that can be wronged in a moral way, a capability generalized to be assigned to human beings despite there being no proof of any other animal with this ability (para.2). Human beings belong to the species Homo sapiens, under which all members share identical genetic make up and a distinctive physiological resemblance which the encyclopedia shuns as being of a characteristic moral irrelevance that is compared to the human variations of gender and race. This creates a basis of discarding the thought that humans are accorded moral consideration to rights and ability of being wronged owing to their species of origin. These claims are attached to human beings due to their ability to have family ties, start war, use of a definite system of communication like language and also the ability to solve social problems. However, some birds e.g. magpies, parrots and mynahs appear to be just as mentally sophisticated (White, pp. 347) making the argument void.
Animal use for research and industrial gains
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy reveals that research demonstrates animal behavior as comprising of some distinctive human behaviors. Some animals are reported to exhibit kinship ties that last quite a considerable amount of time. An observation of orangutan mothers revealed that they stayed with their offspring for a period of eight to ten years as they took care of them and retained their relationship even after parting. Social animals like apes are claimed to uphold ties in their extended families and that the loss or injury of one of the animals has the capability to emotionally affect one another and in severe cases result in death owing to sorrow. Darwins book, The Descent of Man records that the reaction of female monkeys to the loss of their young is so passionate. In fact, he states that the grief of female monkeys for the loss of their young ones is so intense that it invariably caused the death of certain kinds (para.3). Feelings of anger and rage are also witnessed by the aggression of these non-humans.
Utilitarianism theory presented by John Stuart Mill (Chapter 7) of James Whites book, Contemporary Moral Problems) sets its roots around utility and claims that peoples actions are proportionate to their need to accord them happiness. Mills ideology is not based on the rightness or wrongness of the action in question but its ability to make one happy. Utilitarianism is viewed as giving an opportunity for justification of acts that are suspected to be morally wrong. An illustration given is lying with the anticipation of having a resulting good or favorable consequence (White, pp.2). The principle deduces that it is morally right to use vivisection of pigs for medical and industrial research, a move that is condemned by animal rights activists. This principle also claims to justify euthanasia of people living very sad lives like the severely mentally ill and those suffering from incurable diseases (White, pp 89).
The rationale behind human beings indulgence in activities that are claimed to degrade the rights of animals allow them to conduct experimental procedures for much needed findings in medicine and other industries. Whites book claims that the US military conducts experiments in secret with approximately 330,000 domestic and wild animals in 2001 (pp. 323). Under the study, a group of animals were subjected to radiation treatment in which the control group suffered effects of extensive exposure to radiation waves. In a parallel experiment, pigs throats were slit and then subjected to 45minutes of pain before being resuscitated. The pigs that survived this initial treatment were killed so that their organs would be used to study the effects of shock on organs (White, pp. 323). Tom Reagan argues that some non humans have basic moral rights that can be equate to those of humans (White, pp. 345). He asserts that all mammals of the age of one year and above have similar basic moral rights and as a result of this notion, human beings reserve no rights to harm or kill animals. He displays a hearty concern about the need to foster individual rights to all forms of life regardless of there being different sentiments about the issue (Reagan, pp. 320) in The case for animal rights, a book on the rights of animals. A further observation in variances in the strength of moral rights between animals and human beings claims to justify some forms of treatment to animals by human beings. Some realities compel human beings to kill animals for reasons that would not justify the killing of persons (White, pp. 345).
Human beings are monitored as to be treating their old and at times dying members of their families better than they do to animals. Exceptions are witnessed in the cases of pets that are loved and treated as members of the family (pp. 325). White presents the case of humans who do not have rationale and self conscious. He claims that if animals are not accorded moral consideration owing to the lack of these attributes, such human beings should too, as claimed by Scruton, a philosopher. In the defense for his theory, Scruton claims that there are three categories of people who are not regarded as persons due to them not being members of the moral community. These are the mentally impaired, infants and those in a medically vegetative state.
Conclusion
Moral standing and the criterion to determine what animal is entitled to it continues to pose bitter arguments between animal and human rights activists. Non-human beings continue to exercise moral rights only under the mercy of human reason, and not choice. Different philosophical theories tend to favor either human beings or at times animals due to different thoughts being the voice of reason that determines the angle the argument leans towards depending on the philosophers thoughts on the subject. Most animal rights activists and scholars will however admit that despite animals having moral rights, they are lower compared to those of human beings (pp. 326), especially due to their advanced mental and physiological abilities. Continued dispute about whether it is morally right for animals to be used for industrial, medical or genetic alteration for the purposes of acting as food for human beings is one that needs a careful study before blaming one side or the other.
It is evident that human beings depend on animals for food and other needs and at the same time animals are dependent on humans for the administration of care either personally or by maintaining the environment in order to sustain their well being (Foldvary, para. 11). Human beings should therefore come up with less brutal methods of using animals for their own benefit and also ensure a minimal number of them are used and only in situations that are very crucial. The degree of harm caused by humans to animals depends on the level of the animals sentience, the higher in sentience an animal species, the more harm can be done to it, and the greater right it has to be free from harm by humans. A few animals, such as dolphins and apes, are so high in intelligence that their right to live exceeds the right of almost any kind of human use, and the worse we may ethically do is keep them in pleasant captivity (Foldvary, para. 10).
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment