As Baird put it "it's impossible for them, in principle, to give or withhold voluntary consent or to make a moral choice" (106). Perhaps these arguments, or defenses may not be enough to sway or convince someone that animals should be used or at least to tolerate the usage of animals here in there in testing for the benefit of mankind. But what can not be disputed it studies and facts which are also used in order to defend the postion of an advocate for the use of animals in testing and
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”. While Tom Regan states, “that all beings who are ‘‘subjects-of-a-life” should receive the moral recognition and legal protection that rights afford”. The problem with the
She makes sure to note that in this case equality is not referring to treatment, but just to consideration of interests. For example, it would be silly to talk about a dog’s right to vote. According to her, just because the being doesn’t have rights, doesn’t necessarily mean their interests count for less than a being that does have rights. However, she rejects the notion of equality that Singer presents, that the suffering of one being be counted equally to the suffering of another regardless of the nature of the being. She states that “if we can find a significant difference in capabilities between human and non-human animals, this could serve to justify regarding human interests as primary” (Steinbock,
Evolutionary considerations are not conclusive either, because it is only pain behaviour, and not the experience of pain itself, that would be advantageous in the struggle for survival. Harrison concludes that since the strongest argument for the claim that animals are conscious fails, one should not believe that they are
Yong includes the viewpoint of a Primatologist, Frans de Waal of Emory University, which states that, “ ...but if we give rights to apes, what would be the compelling reason to not give rights to monkeys, dogs, rats, and so on.” I strongly agree with Frans de Waal’s opinion because there is no clear place to draw the line. If one mammal is given human rights because, “they feel pain” and “share similar human qualities as us” then, many other mammals should have the same authority to receive those human rights. Therefore, I believe there should be a line drawn between the distinguishment of human and apes, because were are similar but not completely the same
In the article, Timothy Hsiao begins with an outline of one school of thought of vegetarians that it is morally wrong to eat meat because of the pain caused in the killing of animals and that eating meat is unessential to survival. 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).
We all come from different backgrounds, ethnicities and cultures. People come from all over the world in order to live by their own means. There is a sort of racial complex in the United States that indirectly makes people of other races or cultures cleanse out their way of life in order to fit into American society. People should not have to feel this way just because they don’t choose to adopt the American way. Everyone wants to be accepted for who they are and should be respected in what their beliefs 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
He states that if we are to take seriously the principle of equality, which allows us to say that all humans, despite the color of the skin or what abilities they possess, should be treated as equals, then we must commit and apply this same principle to our relation with the non-human animals. For example, if we believe discrimination against a disabled person for either their lack of mental capacity or their inability to communicate is wrong, then it is equally wrong to discriminate against animals who lack these abilities. Similarly, just as we should not disregard the interests of people who are not members of our race, we should not disregarded the interests of animals who are not members of our species. Like Jeremy Bentham, the father of modern utilitarianism, Singer believes people often draw arbitrary lines when determining whose interests should be taken into consideration. Historically speaking, sometimes the line is drawn based on gender, other times it is based race or abilities.
Although people may believe Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of equality was achieved, but it is not and this is evident with modern-day transphobia,homophobia, and religious inequality. A transgender person’s self-identity does not conform to the conventional notations of gender they were born with; therefore they may wish to change their appearance to match their
For the opponent 's side some my argue that rights can be afforded only to those capable grasping the moral laws of living. As well as that they believe human lives come first. An opponent argue said "it is absurd to suggest that animal rights in the same way that humans do. Animals aren 't capable with obligation that come with living in a structured community. And animals clearly do not have that
Peter Singer’s article, “Speciesism and the Equality of Animals,” claims that human beings should apply the principle of equal consideration of interests to nonhuman beings as well as human beings, and Singer asserts that the capacity for suffering is an important characteristic that gives a human or nonhuman being the right to equal consideration. Simply put, human beings should treat other human beings and nonhuman beings equally. Peter Singer, the Australian philosopher, defines speciesism “as a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one’s own species and against those members of other species” (277); therefore, Singer’s principle of equal consideration of interests is extremely valuable because it sheds insight against speciesism, such that speciesism is similar to racism and sexism. Peter Singer begins his argument against speciesism by agreeing with the philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, that a full-grown horse or dog is a more of a conversable and rational animal than a newborn child (Bentham qtd. in Singer 278).
Norcross believe that one should not eat meat that is raised in a factory. He uses an argument about torturing puppies and eating their brains. Although his argument about Fred and his extreme cruelty to feel the sensation of eating chocolate is cruel, it puts one in a state of mind to pay close attention to his point. What is his point? Eating animals that are raised in factories are just is cruel as torturing puppies for one’s own pleasure.