ANIMAL FARM Human beings have a positive obligation toward animals; we have a moral obligation to help them and protect them from the harm of others. Animals possess the ability to experience pleasure and pain and interpret those feelings while applying them to the actors responsible for the aforementioned experiences. Because of this higher logical ability, we have an obligation to factor the experiences of animals into the calculation of Utilitarianism. For greater clarity, Utilitarianism is the theory that the morally correct action is the one that will result in the greatest amount of pleasure (Mill 1861: pg. 38). Under the philosophical theory of Utilitarianism, human beings have a positive moral obligation toward animals. In Immanuel …show more content…
The requirement for garnering a positive moral obligation is the ability to judge. 5. Therefore, human beings do have a duty to animals. Kant argues that human beings do not have any moral obligation to animals because animals do not have the ability to judge people for their actions. Upon further inspection of defining judgement, it is clear that animals possess the ability to judge, and human beings do, in fact, have a duty to them. The Utilitarian view argues that people ought to perform the action that results in the most amount of pleasure, and I would argue that because of their ability to judge and apply their experiences of pleasure and pain to human beings, animals ought to be considered when calculating this ‘greatest happiness.’ While they may not have higher cognitive abilities, they do have pleasure, pain, and the ability to remember what beings and people are the source of those experiences. If animals have the ability to experience and interpret these feelings, human beings ought to protect them and work for their best interests, especially considering the fact that they lack the ability to advocate for …show more content…
Animals have the ability to experience pleasure and pain, furthermore, they have the ability to interpret and ascribe the meaning of these feeling toward other beings whom they deem the cause of the experiences. Kant, along with other Philosophers would argue that have a moral obligation or duty because of their difference in ability to reason with higher contemplation. An adage that has been ascribed to Albert Einstein states that “if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing it is stupid.” While animals do have differing abilities from human beings, they deserve equal consideration and their pleasure and pain are worthy of consideration. All arguments considered, human beings do have a moral obligation to consider the pleasure and pain of animals based on their ability to feel and interpret
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, proves his statement that many of our fellow creatures also “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love..”. I agree that animals share similar feelings as us, and I believe that they should be treated in a way that they can feel comfortable and care in their surroundings. Just because animals may not be completely the same as us, that should not give the right to a human to mistreat and abuse of an animal’s life. Animals can be well treated and cared for without giving them the right to be treated as a human.
Gary Steiner writes “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” to address the questions around animal treatment. Steiner essay originally appeared in the New York Times in 2009. He wrote this essay in hopes to communicate with the general public. This is clear because it was published in a newspaper article which is intended for a variety of readers due to the company large audience. Steiner’s main claim that he is trying to make is “most people just don’t care about the lives or fortunes of animals” (771).
Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion” (Pollan). It’s in our nature to eat animals; we have been doing it since the beginning of time. Peter Singer sent an email to Pollan regarding the animals that lived on Singer’s Good Farm, saying, "I agree with you that it is better for these animals to have lived and died than not to have lived at all” (Pollan). Getting the chance to live is indeed better than to not live at all, regardless of your lifespan, unless that life is filled with nothing but torture and turmoil. I mean why even treat animals any better than how they treat each other.
In the article, All Animals Are Equal, author Peter Singer asserts that we ought to give the same admiration to the lives of non-human creatures as we provide for the lives of people that all creatures, human and non-human, are equal. In the article Singer argues 3 different points. Equity, moral thoughts, and moral importance. Singer starts shows equity by explaining how decency does not require measures up to rights. For example, he talks on how puppies are not equal being that they do not really know what voting is and they do not have a benefit to vote.
According to Elizabeth Harman, an action that kills an animal even painlessly, is an action that harms the animal. If we indeed have strong moral reasons against causing pain to animals, Harman argues we must also have strong moral reasons against killing animals. This raises an objection to the Surprising Claim, which states that we have strong reasons against causing intense pain to animals, but only weak reasons against killing animals. The First View claims that killing an animal deprives it of a positive benefit (future life) but does not harm the animal.
Since entitlements, freedoms and rights are all affixed, we can then look more closely at the differences between animals, humans and their independent abilities to obtain justices and compassion. Overall, compassion between humans and animals is contrasted due to the vast differences in the species and their understanding of their rights and entitlements for both themselves and each
Animals and humans are both created by the same Creator, and he loves all of His creation equally. If one is truly created in God’s image, and he is to act in a way that reflects God, he should also respect and care for all He has given to him and not use animals in a way that solely benefits himself. Being given “dominion” is not a way to say that humans can do anything they please with animals, but rather it illustrates that humans are to protect and care for creation: a grand task. Christine Stevens’s idea that the Golden Rule should apply to animals as well as humans is correct, because one should respect all that God has given us equally as much as God
In the op-ed piece “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin emphasizes the similarities between humans and animals by providing results on scientific research studies to illustrate that humans should be more empathetic towards animals. In addition, he further explains how research results have changed the ways humans perceived animals and indicates solutions that were taken by other countries and organizations to help improve and protect animal rights. Rifkin provides examples that demonstrate animals have emotions, conceptual abilities, self awareness, and a sense of individualism just like humans. For example, Pigs crave for affection and get depressed easily when isolated, two birds Betty and Abel have tool making skills, Koko
Godwin, Great post and happy holidays. I enjoyed reading your post and would like to share some of my views. In addition, I do believe that humans have direct ethical duties towards animals especially if they are our pets, livestock, and etc. The bible makes many references to animals as our property and a form of offering to God. There is one reference that leads me to believe that there is a sense of direct care that can be deemed ethical.
Moral Status of Nonhuman Animals Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher that believes we should accept the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle states that all beings, both human and nonhuman animals should have their interests considered with the same weighting. Singer believes this principle must be adopted to avoid becoming speciesist: defined as the preference of one species over another species. He compares this practice to racism and sexism but instead of discriminating by race or sex, we discriminate by species. Through careful consideration of Singer’s argument and objections, we are able to reject his claim that a nonhuman animal has the same interests as a human.
They should be encompassed in the moral rules, values, and concerns about fairness that apply to human beings . It is not fatal to the theory of animal rights if we adopt this more inclusive principle because it does not exclude rights grounded in interests that allow for the inclusion of
As Bob Stevens once stated, “In nature, animals kill and eat each other naturally.” Why should it be different for us humans just because we feel more sympathy to the animals? Food is currently at it’s inexpensive price because of the way food is being grown, although the ways food animals are being raised may be “inhumane” or doesn’t give the animals dignity. In the modern world, it takes much less time for us to raise chickens and other food which causes production to be higher than before. If animals had rights, big companies would have to spend more money feeding the animals their natural diet, causing less plump animals and more money to feed.
Does the wrongness of killing animals (human and non-human) depend on them possessing specific attributes? If the wrongness of killing depends on the killed holding particular attributes, do non-human animals possess them? (Here I will examine the latest research into animal mindedness.)
However, in some researches and documentaries, we see that they are able to recognize what is going around them. They also have feelings and they feel the pain, like us. Those people, who defend that nonhuman animals should be used in researches, argue that animals do not have moral characteristics, they cannot reason and defend their rights. Nevertheless, some experiments, not in biological ones, show that animals can act in humanitarian ways towards the members of their own species.