Looking at pets for example, society implements laws protecting these animals because becoming aware of a pet in pain would lead to human discomfort due to numerous facts such as the strong friendly bond people have with their pets. Though if we look at the case of eating meat, most of society does not extend their moral code to protect the animals farmed or hunted for food because they are protecting their interests such as the pleasure they enjoy from the taste of meat or the energy it gives their bodies. The interest of not having to pay more than required is also a strong contributing factor to the way animals are treated. Here human moral code is not extended to look after these animals. Because even though farming and hunting animals has extreme consequences to the environment and the animals suffering on farms, it has little direct discomfort to humans such as seeing a mans best friend in pain.
Numerous people have attempted to justify the use of such methods by putting down or rather, dismissing the animal as a creature lacking the mental capacities to be considered equals to that of a human being. In their book "Animal Experimentation : The Moral Issue" authors Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum say, "holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves" (104). He then goes on to explain that "animals do not have such moral capacities" (Baird 105). And as a result of this "we can't violate their rights because they have none" (Baird 105). Dismissing the animal as nothing more then an object may not seem like the most reasonable defense against the use of animals for testing
Which she then reasons why ethically animals should not be given equality due to it being absurd. Examining each animal’s capacity to reason, suffer, emote, use language, make tools, or exhibit some other trait presumed to define what it means to be human is irrational. Therefore, rather than basing rights off of those traits make it a vulnerability discourse. There are two main animal equality arguments, Peter Singer’s Utilitarian theory, and Tom Regan’s moral recognition theory. Singer argues, “human preference for humans rests on an unsupportable biological distinction vis-a`-vis all other animals”.
In his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer defends a pro-animal argument. The goal of the argument is not to lower the status of humans, but to elevate the status of animals. He compares the belief that humans should always take precedence over issues about animals to the prejudice of slave owners against their slaves. He states that it is easy to look back and criticize the prejudices of the people who lived back then, but it is much harder to criticize ourselves, our beliefs, and whatever prejudices we may hold and actually try to change them. In his argument for animal rights, he first talks about equal consideration for the suffering of animals.
In the articles of Jeremy Rifkin, Victoria Braithwaite, and Ed Yong, there's a deep research and debate whether animals should be given the right to have human rights or not. All authors include their perspective on the issue and provide scientific evidence. However, I believe that there should be a separation of rights between animals and humans because there is no biological basis for drawing the line. Giving the right to apes, what factors exclude other mammals like dogs, cats, and birds. 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..”.
Hsiao then establishes his argument that even though eating meat may not be necessary, our “nutritional interests” are a valid enough reason to kill animals. The following section argues that sentience is only a relevant consideration in association with sufficient moral standing and that because animals are not part of the human “moral community,” they have no moral standing and therefore, their pain is a “non-moral” welfare interest, trumped by the “moral” welfare interests of humans (Hsiao).
Speciesism, as it is described by the philosopher named Peter Singer, is an attitude of bias against the members of another species and toward the interests of one’s own species (Cushing 556). In our world, discrimination comes in many forms and occurs when someone is morally treated less than others for unjust reasons. Many people claim that speciesism can be put in the same category as racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination. Those who support this claim can agree that nonhuman animals and humans should be morally treated with equal consideration, but not everyone thinks there is anything wrong with speciesism. There are people who argue that humans are superior, and so the way we treat nonhuman animals differently could be justified.
Animals lives are just as important and valuable as humans. One website called SIRS Issues Researcher says “Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering” Website evidence also states “If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as dinner” This evidence supports the claim in three ways. One way is that the evidence makes some people picture animals
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. Singer’s argument is based on two pillars – the belief that speciesism is wrong, and by extension, the only fair way to base equal interest is not by race or sex but some other factor such as the ability to suffer or feel pleasure. Singer argues that it is wrong for us to privilege our species just as it is wrong to privilege whites over blacks or males over females. He states that there are
She erroneously concluded that the biblical concept was meant to encompass all animal rights and humans’ treatment of them. One reason why Christine Stevens’ conclusion is faulty is because, if the Golden Rule did apply to animals, it would prohibit us from clothing ourselves with their skins, using them as a source of food, and using them as a source of profit. It would be a sin to use a human being for any of these things, but it is the norm for animals. In the