In the film, "Louis Theroux's African Hunting Party", South African wild game farmers advocate trophy hunting as a necessary activity for saving certain species from inevitable extinction due to illegal wildlife poaching. However, when considering Peter Singer's utilitarian theory on the ethical treatment of non-human animals, the process of shooting and killing an animal to preserve its species seems counterintuitive. Applying Singer's perspective, my position is that trophy hunting is morally unacceptable as it reasserts speciesism by disregarding the suffering of the animals being murdered for sport. Indeed, the act of purchasing a hunting permit so that a person may kill an animal for its material value dismisses the animal's personhood. Also, the desire to take a photograph with its dead body and mutilate its carcass so that it may become a 'trophy' completely undermines Singer's principle of equality, wherein the individual's best interests are taken into account to ensure that each being is treated humanely. Singer argues that the principle of equality should be extended to non-human animals as the main qualifier for ethical treatment is sentience, and since …show more content…
Wild game farmers and hunters are speciesists because they do not consider the interests of the sentient beings they come into contact with; instead, they view them as beasts who are incapable of feeling. In fact, they approach these animals as subordinate to human beings for their inability to converse and reason, however, they fail to notice that like humans, animals have an inherent evolutionary drive to survive and reproduce and, as is evident by their instinct to run whenever they hear a gun shot, they are aware of their need to
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In a twitter post, by Maurice Simon it states,“Hunters- every time you post for a photo with a dead body of a animal you killed you are simply making a fool of yourself showing the entire would that you are morally void. No matter how you brainwash or bribe, no matter what costumes, gear, trophy you show off, no matter how much marketing and money you invest in it, no matter how you try to glorify or justify it all your tradition and practices legal or not are wrong hunting is Murder you have nothing to be proud about”(Simon). This is saying that the people that hunt for these trophy animals are wrong because they aren 't hunting for the food but the thrill and that is not right. It would be different if these people needed the food, because killing these big animals would give them a lot of
It is basically survival of the fittest. Giving animal’s rights should be necessary only if they are being abused. For example, forcing dogs to fight other dogs till one is dead. If the animals are killed for our basic human needs than it should not be wrong. I agree with Bob Stevens in his letter to Rifkins when he mentions the fact that pigs would get toys even though there are human beings in the world who do not have such things.
For vegetarians, animal rights should trump human rights. In “Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Animal Rights,” Tom Regan defines animal rights as “the natural right to life” (307). Similar to Regan, many vegetarians believe that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. By switching to a plant-base diet, people will be able to alleviate the needless suffering and deaths of countless animals. Besides, in the same article, Regan also suggests “to treat animals in a more humane manner” (308).
The theory or idea that animal has rights comes from the rights that are traditionally moral and politically correct rights is a virtue from the type of culture that we are. Animal liberation comes from the utilitarian tradition that comes from ethics and mortality as coming about as a result of pleasure and/or pain, as someone’s overall well-being. When animals are caged harvest, this diminishes their well-being, which gives us the mortality that we address their decreased well-being and prescribes to us to liberate
Then, Goodall uses the phrase "There are many ethical issues, which we seldom face up to, whenever an animal is killed" (paragraph 11,first sentence) he utilizes these words to empower and motivate the readers to think more in depth about the issue and also to make some changes. While Goodall states her point of view she builds a strong relationship with the audience. This text is extremely effective because it gives the audience and future readers a backdrop of trophy hunting. Jane Goodall does an excellent job in crafting her opinion to the readers, for she shows her sympathy and understanding of the issue through the use of
Singer opens up discussing different liberation movements and how certain movements have expanded our interpretation of the basic moral principle of equality. This directs him into advocating his belief basic equality should expand amongst all species. Throughout the text, the term speciesism is used, which he defines 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”. Singer makes it apparent, in today’s society, most people practice speciesism. He makes three apparent claims: equality is based on equal consideration, equality is a moral idea not factual, and the importance of taking into account suffering and interests.
I, like Mary Midgley, agree with Peter Singer in that humans should not harm or be cruel to animals if it is not completely necessary. I agree with his argument regarding animals being used for cosmetic testing and medical testing, and with his argument against harsh factory farming practices, but I find his moral argument against the use of animals for food questionable. I believe meat-eating as a dietary practice for all of humankind is justifiable. Peter Singer implies that humans and non-humans are equal in more ways than many people like to recognize, but one thing he fails to acknowledge is that humans and non-humans also share a shared instinct for survival.
In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer 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. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism
In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
Animals carry an important role throughout human lives every day. Humans look to animals for numerous things such as: pets, a means of production, food, entertainment, experimental means, etc. Many animals carry human like traits, which raises many arguments and different positions on the subject of whether animals deserve rights while others feel that animals are simply animals, but may have certain interests that humans are obligated to respect. The issue is that many people confuse the terms animal rights and animal welfare when there is a fundamental difference between the two that revolves around the rights that humans have to use animals. There are many animal rights organizations including but not limited to: Best Friend’s Animal Society, The Humane Society of the United States, and the largest animal’s rights movement, People for Ethical
Animals Rights In society, animals are being killed for food, fur, and experiments. This raises the question is it ethical to kill other animals for our own person gain? As human, we live in a society where it is humane to kill other animals when it comes to survival, clothing and to help cure diseases. But this is not really answering the question why is this okay?
Supporters claim that their sport helps conservation efforts and helps bring money to the communities in which they are hunting from. Opposers claim that occasionally there is a fine line between trophy hunting and poaching, because much of it is illegal. They also claim that only a small percent of the money made goes to help conservation efforts, and it causes a decrease in the wild life population. I consider myself as an opposer in most cases. I don’t believe it is our job to decide whether an animal should live or die, and I don’t see how killing an animal is supposed to help the population.
Secondly, trophy hunting should not be legal because it is harmful to endangered species. According to Africa’s Uneasy Neighbors, “Africa has lost up to 60 percent wild animals in the past 40 years.” For another example, “Some guides illegally take hunters to into protected areas or lure the animals out as in a case of Cecil.” This evidence proves that trophy hunting
I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.