Another definition of the word human is of or characteristic of people's better qualities, such as kindness or sensitivity. What this means it not every person is a true human. We all know that there are people out there who do terrible things for their personal reasons or even no reason at all. By this more in-depth definition, these people do not qualify as human, for they do not have characteristics of people’s better qualities. This reasoning shows that just because you are of Homo sapiens and belong to our species does not mean that you have human characteristics and are therefore one of us.
While ethical relativism has its advantages, such as that it could create a peaceful society, that is not always the case. Relativism does not accept that certain moral values are universal. Just because cultures differ, that does not mean there are no moral values and norms, like murder or child abuse. Determining what is morally right or wrong is a difficult thing, and each individual has a different belief about it. So, by allowing everyone to follow their own moral code, it could lead to a chaotic society.
Utilitarianism, otherwise known as consequentialism, is an ethical framework that considers actions morally correct or right is their outcomes or consequences: A person’s actions are considered moral if the outcome brings out the greatest and most amount of good. Even if a person has good intentions to conduct the action, a utilitarian would not consider this morally significant if the consequences are not positive. Something is “good” if it fulfills an entities base desires but their pleasures are also part of the equation; utilitarianism can become quite complicated when one must consider all the desires of everyone affected, equally considering each one individually. The Animal welfare philosopher Peter Singer, has several ideas regrading how non-human species fit into the utilitarian ideology and the responsibility humankind should have for entities that traditionally viewed as “below” them. I will begin with a general discussion about Peter Singer’s core idea of speciesism followed by the counter anthropocentrism argument, and conclusions based on real world examples that exhibit human’s morally sound treatment of animals currently.
It isn’t a good picture, isn’t it? Then, why is it different than animals? In addition, according to “Animal Liberation,” Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments” ( Singer). This quote implies that people who discriminate against animals have mental impairments which are initially correct. If someone approves of torturing defenseless animals for no reason, they are
Wilson is absolutely sure in his point of view; and according to that in “The Biological Basis of Morality” he says “I believe in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not, and I believe that moral values come from human beings alone, whether or not God exists” (1998, p.112). In other words, it means that E.O. Wilson believes that moral values are independent from God or another perfect being; and come along with humans. It is not necessary to be a God to distinguish what is good and wrong. However, there is one common thing that Wilson shares with Kant and that thing is free will.
Although I do understand that it is very difficult to know the true motives of an individual making a decision, I think it is less subjective than it is deemed to be. I peculiarly favor Immanuel Kant’s School of thought in the Deontological wing of Ethics. Kant’s moral philosophy is “Do the right thing, Do it because it is the right thing to do”. Kant believed that we should act from a sense of moral duty and act with the correct motives, without any regard to the consequences of our action. He emphasized that the motives would be morally correct if they adhered to two rules.
The validity and even humanity in animal testing is something on the margins of morale, it is not something done out of joy, it is not pleasurable for the testers or the tested themselves. So there, we are given a reason to submit the simple question of whether animal testing should be permitted at all. Why not simply cut our losses and move on to greener pastures, after all it is indeed the definition of grotesque to experiment on living beings and people may have been right to protest and raise awareness for such cruel misconducts. There must be something that can be done. However, that line of thinking quickly clashes with the fact that with the help of exactly such testing, with the sacrifice of those animal lives, human lives are saved in return.
Not astonishingly, this propulsion has met with a hefty become of criticism and rib from those who conceive that the cost of physical rights specifically, and inflated protections solon generally, is a like reduction in hominine freedom. Fauna rights are the belief that animals have a right to be free of human use and exploitation, but there is a great deal of confusion about what that means. Fauna rights are not roughly swing animals above humans or giving animals the corresponding rights as humans. Also, animal rights are very different from animal welfare is the belief that humans do have a right to use animals if the animals are treated humanely while animal rights are the belief that humans do not have a right to use animals for
According to Singer, the fact that we as a human specie, have a mind to think and have the ability to communicate, and are also privileged in many other things which animals are not, does not mean that we have to treat animal as if they are less and this also does not mean that we should decide in what they deserve when it is our happiness which we are only thinking about. The only reason for equality cases to exist between man and women is because, they belong to human species, in other words, animals are less than human beings. Singer argues for this by pointing to variation among humans. If we look at the usual characteristics that all human share, we will find that there are human beings who lack of certain characteristics. It’s a fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes.