I agree with the idea of creating a Bill of Rights for animals because humans share similar characteristics with animals, thus we have a moral obligation to
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
Peter Singer, as a person who wants to have animal liberation, concluded that there is animal rights. He claimed that it is impossible to ignore creatures who suffered; therefore, we have to lie on our principle of equality that we have to count everything that suffered equally. First, he claimed that it is impossible to deny the basic principle of equality of consideration to other species unless it is because of selfishness of one’s. He stated that humans have to have consideration towards animals because they also suffer. In other words, humans have to apply the principle of equality of consideration to other beings too.
Parker Garland Dr. Wion Ethics 12/10/16 Utilitarianism and Abortion Imagine how the world would be if everybody consistently acted in a manner in which what was best for everyone and animals was the main goal of each and every action and decision made. Do you think the world would be a better place? The is what the moral theory of Utilitarianism argues that it would be. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that believes that the best action is the one that maximizes utility.
Cohen continues to add that we have a moral obligation to not inflict any unnecessary suffering on animals. To further build his argument, he also takes on a possible objection that claims that because some human might be unable to be autonomous or be morally able, they don’t. He rebuts this objection by saying his statements apply to members of species as whole, therefore, all humans would have
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.
He also conveys the belief that any non-mammal animal that shows itself to be subject-of-life, i.e., having consciousness also possesses these inherent rights equal to that of humans. Seemingly divergent, Warren blasts Regan’s concept of subject-of-life citing fish, spiders, and octopi as falling outside the description of the rights of mature mammals. She instead stands the position that animals with the ability to pursue pleasure should, those that can feel pain should not be unduly inflicted, and no sentient being should be killed without good reason. Despite the obvious difference, both Regan and Warren, respectively, promote the position of “sometimes equal to
For the view of against animal experiment, it will use the equal consideration theory to argue. Singer (2009) suggests that the principle of the equality is not required the equal or identical treatment, it is required equal consideration. The prerequisite to has equal consideration is the capacity for suffering, and it also is an important characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration (Singer 2009; Pojman, 1992). Those who have the ability to feel the pain, no matter it are a human or non-human, they should be morally equal. Therefore, for the same ability to feel pain, it should be given the equal concern and the right to live for the beings.
For a service provider or activities coordinator, they have to favour the activity to conform to the service user’s physical abilities and select a suitable activity that consists around the needs. Planning is similar in the way that physical abilities are considered, risks are included and precautions are made to ensure the safety, enjoyment and contentment of the service user or group. Physical abilities will affect the performance and implementation of the activity by seeing and acknowledge the differences and variety of needs that are acquired to carry out the
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).