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.
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?
(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).
Argument Analysis: Animal Liberation Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” gave me a whole new perspective on animals and the way humans have been treating them. It is a convincing piece because it provides information that you would not have known about animals and the way they are being treated. I did not think about the animals and how their life was like before they were prepared as food for the people. Singer argues that since animals cannot speak for themselves we the people decide to speak for them but we do not know exactly what they want. It is true that we do things to animals that we are not for certain how are they are affected by it.
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
By looking at work by other writers, this essay looks to try to evaluate the view that “Non-humans should be included in politics!” Like stated in my introduction according to Aristotle there is a clear line between humans and animals, telling us that only the human animal is a political animal, as a political animal you become in principle a possessor of political rights. The history of politics can be seen as the progressive inclusion of more and more groups in the decision-making process. However, over history from the ancient Greeks, women and slaves were excluded from having a political voice. There was a time when people of colour [sic] had no political voice. Black Americans were disenfranchised and segregated until the 1960s.
In this analysis the activist approach to animal rights is too extreme. The progress mankind has achieved in industrialization, technology, mathematics, and science first began when humans decided to stop chasing their food. They domesticated animals which allowed them to experience more free time in which they could focus on more advanced
Admittedly, perhaps during the time of Descartes, the thought of animals having emotions was preposterous but given today’s notion of treating animals as if they were human, the idea of animal emotions does raise an argument against Descartes. Moreover, animals in modern psychological studies are under strict guidance as to their care and use in experimental studies. If animals were simply unreasoning machines, modern psychology would not have developed the American Psychological Association’s
Quatation from French philosopher Voltaire showing that animals have rights because they have feelings and can understand. 8. Quatation from the famous jungle doctor and humanitarian, Albert Schweitzer showing that “reverence for life” applied not just to humans, but to all living creatures. 9. Quatation from professor Dr. Thomas Regan arguing that people resist the idea that animals have rights and see animals as objects rather than creatures.
Ethics is the study of morality, what is good or bad, right or wrong. (DLCentre 2011). It is a requirement for human life, it is our means of deciding a course of action, without it our actions would be random and aimless. Most people recognise some common ethical norms but different individuals interpret, apply and balance these norms in different ways in light of their own values and life experiences (Importance of Philosophy 2001). The philosophical study of ethics goes back much further than 20th and 21st century medical issues but could still be applied to the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering.