We will not make them suffer long painful deaths. Ethical treatment of animals can be solved using the deontology theory. “Deontology focuses on what we are obligated to do as rational moral agents. It is particularly important to see that the deontologist does not say that actions do not have consequences; rather, the deontologist insists that actions should not be evaluated on the basis of the action's consequences (Mossler, 2010).“ One example of the deontology theory in action is your livestock is being attacked by a wild animal. In efforts to protect your livestock you shoot and kill the wild animal.
The morality of humane treatment or imposing the parameters of human rights as a moral imperative where animals are concerned should be based upon the idea that as an enlightened human being, animals should be treated with dignity. That animals do not deserve humane treatment because they cannot reciprocate is not a rational idea. Neither is the argument that because they cannot be taught relevant. It is not about the creature who is being treated in a certain way as much as the morality involved in using power over other creatures to deny their
He believed that the government had an obligation to protect the citizens natural rights. But that was the only reason that the government existed, and if the people believed that the government was not fulfilling this task, they could overthrow him and find someone new. John Locke believed that good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational human being. These are the guidelines by which all
(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).
Transition: Let’s begin by first looking at how animals have rights of their own. [Body] I. Animal rights are as important as human rights. a. Matt Prescott, director for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals “Change is sometimes difficult. But in a country that values justice, we owe it to ourselves to continue learning and expanding our sphere of respect for others who are not exactly like us but who still deserve to be protected from exploitation.
It is wrong when it tends otherwise." He supports the idea from two perspectives. First from the utilitarian point of view, he explains that not attempting to conserve wild species jeopardizes resources that humans depend on. The second view, the bio centric position, he emphasizes that wild species have an 'inherent right to exist. I think that to him there are just no other options and he does not want readers to begin to consider not intervening in the lives of wild animals in order to conserve them.
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).
We as human beings need laws in order to live in a society; it is what separates us from the animals. With out laws there would just be chaos and no order in the world and that could be the end of our species. Without laws people would never have justice and none of our civil liberties would be protected; we need these laws in order to still call ourselves human. 2. Differentiate between natural law and positive law that explains the vast differences and origins between the two.
Neha Siddiqui Vivi-section Vivi-section is the act of cutting open an animal for scientific purposes. Vivi-section should not be legal. Us humans are the smartest living beings on this planet but that does not mean we go around stealing the rights of animals for our selfish purposes. We use Vivi-section for scientific purposes, to find cures to deadly diseases but Vivi-section results aren’t accurate since humans and animals aren’t the same. Vivi-section violates animal freedom.
Peter Singer, in his article, All Animals are Equal, claims that we should give the same respect to the lives of non-human animals as we give to the lives of humans--that all animals, human and non-human, are equal. To make his case he must overcome claims towards speciesim. Singer defines speciesim as, "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species"; and makes three claims against it--equality is based on equal consideration, equality is a moral idea not a factual one, and that the capacity for suffering is a prerequisite for rights. Singers argument?--without speciesim inequality cannot follow. To make the case that equality is based on equal consideration, Singer shows that arguments for not extending rights to non-humans are inconsistent.