The Law of Nature is the known difference between right and wrong. That is, man’s distinction between what is right and what is wrong. Lewis also believes we as humans have a primal instinct, although this is not what he means by the moral law. Lewis says: “I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the moral law... Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.”(Lewis 9).
Furthermore, Suzuki effectively discusses the quality of life for the animals being tested, and the depressing and deprived realities that these helpless animals survive. Suzuki makes valid points throughout his article including his statement, “What gives us the right to exploit other living organisms as we see fit? How do we know that these other creatures do not feel pain or anguish just as we do?”(p.91). Suzuki utilizes pathos to strengthen his argument and attempts to shape the opinion of the public. Is it intelligence that determines the animal’s self-worth and right to live, or is it that animals may possess the same if not identical Neuroanatomy of humans?
Satire is used to criticise humanity’s creations, creating a mutual understanding between composer and audience. Through the use of literary devices, the flaws and hypocritical stances are identified within each text. This notion is explored in George Orwell’s allegory ‘Animal Farm,’ which is an allegorical representation of the Russian Revolution, illustrating flaws in our society with a mixture of black humour and critical attitude. The flaws of the human condition corrupt the dreams of Old Major. Napoleon and Snowball originally strive to fulfil Old Major’s dreams but due to the self centeredness of Napoleon, among others, the tenets of Animalism are systematically undermined throughout the novel.
(Midgley p. 152) In other words, Kant does not believe animals to be persons, but they are not exactly things or objects. So the question remains, where exactly do animals stand? Since it is apparent that humans do regard animals as more than mundane objects and that it is evident that animals do display certain levels of intelligence and sentience, I will argue that humans indeed have an irrevocable moral obligation to animals. First of all, let’s start with defining what a human person really is, I believe that a human person is a person if they match the following criteria. They must be a conscious being as in they must be able to experience things subjectively, secondly, they must be self-aware, and thirdly, they must display a certain degree of intelligence, (Anderson).
Steinbock states that “Intelligence is thought to be a morally relevant capacity because of its relation to the capacity for moral responsibility”. In comparing the ideas of racism or sexism to speciecism, the lack of the capacity to be taught to own those rights as can be done in the divide between genders and races, appears to be a measure through which the capacity for rights are bestowed. Because a woman or an African American can be taught and can learn and have equal responses to situations and responsibilities, their rights should be equal to that of white men. But on the other hand, animals do not have the capacity to respond to the world as an equal to humans, therefore they are not subject to human morality or the rights that comes from
I found Lane’s arguments to be tied closely to Kantism and Utilitarism. Lane’s Kantism way of reflects the Categorical Imperative (1st formulation). Lane contends that we are hypocritical in our way of thinking and acting. We eat animals that are of “lesser” intelligence, where animals of “higher” intelligence are overlooked. I found this way of thinking to be narrow minded and impractical.
It was given life and this in itself is already a major gift from Victor, but then going ahead and asking for a partner is absolutely arrogant and unethical. “My companion must be of the same species and have the same defects. This being you must create” (133) is what the creature said to Victor. The monster speaks to Victor as if it is entitled to have a partner; with arrogance. The monster acts with extreme selfishness and from that comes unethical behaviour and actions.
It is human nature to deem the unnatural and irregular as immoral, as articulated in the declaration, “Humans use language, their visual and verbal constructions of reality, to name or image the human and the nonhuman and thus to fix the boundaries between us and them” (Mellor 124). Through continually demoralizing the creature by considering him evil, the characters in the novel ultimately cause the creature to behave monstrously. The reader never essentially gets to meet the creature, but the reader formulates an impression of the creature in his/her head, centered on the creature’s physical descriptions, and by reading about the creatures environment, and by the circumstances under which the readers get acquainted with the
What is the difference between animal and reflective knowledge? How can these types of knowledge be used to evaluate Gettier cases? Animal knowledge is acquired by one’s intellectual virtue, like using our own senses to perceive our true beliefs. This is an externalist form of knowledge because in order to have it, we don’t have to be aware of the processes underlie it. On the other hand, reflective knowledge is internalist knowledge.
For this reason alone, I believe that humans should treat animals with more decency. By seeing their interaction with their own kin in nature, we need to realize that they also have a purpose in life. Although we may not understand them completely, animals share a lot of similar traits with humans. For example, about a portion of them are classified as mammals that reproduce just like us. Thus, we should have a sense of compassion towards them because they