Moral Considerability Essay - 4125 Words

Moral Considerability (Essay Sample) Content: ESSAY: MORAL CONSIDERABILITY/ THEORIES ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD TREAT NON-HUMAN ANIMALSName:Institution:Course:Tutor:Date:IntroductionHuman beings have lately shown injustices in their treatment towards animals. Animals are used for experiments, and they are hunted for food. Evidently, no experimenters would opt to use a fellow human being instead. Isnt this injustice towards the animals? Moral considerability would be evoking into question when similar act done to animals were done to human beings. Various philosophers have reacted towards the animal welfare. Some quite opposed morally considering animals while others supported the idea that animals, like human being, should be given a moral standing. This paper explores the various theories propounded by different theorists and in the end it presents the authors opinion. Anthropocentrism (Kant, Baxter, Narveson and Peffer)Baxters anthropocentric viewpoint is pivoted on what he considers Kantian humanity formulation. Ba xter believes that all humans have necessary intrinsic value, and should thus be developed above any other option as the end to any objective instead of a way to satisfy another. He also favors the redistribution of wealth so that every human is given at least a prospective way to better her life and contentment by maintaining these incentives. According to Baxter, there is nothing in the environment that is significant for its sake but only for the advantages that it brings to humans. Accordingly, any environmental responsibility is judged from the interest of humans as moral standards. Professor Narveson also is in agreement that only humans accountable morally and that what occurs to non-human (animals, plants, species and ecosystems) is morally irrelevant unless some human cares about it. But does this justify the many cases of humans inflicting gratuitous pain and suffering on non-human animals? In this regard, anthropocentrism is insensitive and highly implausible since it im plies that the severe pain inflicted on animals is irrelevant not unless it bothers some humans. This anthropocentric thinking may believe that torturing somebodys pet dog is only wrong as it hurts the owner, not others. Does it then mean that allowing animal a moral status make them equal to humans? Believing that animals have a moral status does not, however, mean they have equal moral status. Neither should they be treated as humans are treated. Moreover, the reasoning that animals have no moral standing since they cannot engage in the social contracts. Even the severely retarded humans would not have a moral standing either; since they too cannot participate in the social contracts. Thus, the ability to reciprocate is not necessary for a moral standing. According to Kant, non-rational beings are things with merely instrumental or relative value. He believes that rational beings are persons and possess worth above all price since only rational being are capable of value distinct ion. Accordingly, in Kantian Cosmos, only those beings that can recognize their intrinsic worth and can be recognized to possess such worth have the highest moral worth. Does this mean, therefore, that severely retarded people have no highest moral worth? Does the possession of the highest moral worth make humans, lords of the universe? According to Kant, moral capacity is not merely quantitatively but is in qualitatively superior to that of the non-humans. Under such comment, he (Kant) would entertain the notion that man is lord of nature. However, in aesthetics, Kant denies that the environment is only instrumentally significant as it is used by human beings to satisfy their needs. Instead, it has value when it serves no such purpose and so the obligation to restore the natural beauty of the damaged ecosystem and the presumption that nature should not be harmed unnecessarily.Animal Liberation (Peter Singer, Gary Varner and Peffer)Peter Singers philosophical ideology is pivoted on the sensibility of the utilitarianism. This is a philosophical standpoint which claims that the morally effective action is that which develops the most maximum amount of pleasure or happiness to the largest amount of people. It postulates that the most important features of any action are the consequences that it develops about rather than the purpose or motivation based on it. Singer believes that ethics should be rooted on the standard of living rather than in hypothetical supposition about it (sanctity) on actual issues of pain and pleasure instead of abstract principles of duty and obedience. Singer argues that the animals share an equal moral status with human beings. Thus, it is unethical for people to kill and preserve. Unlike the common practice of using reason as a means of raising the animal moral status, Singer uses pain. He argues that the ability of animals to feel pain and pleasure put them on a plane of moral equivalence with humanity. Singer contends that since the non-human animals also feel pain as humanity does, humanity has an obligation not to contribute to needless suffering to animals. By implication, there are racists who tend to breach the principle underlying equality by preferring embers of their race and sexists favor only members of the same sex. The speciesists allow the interest of their own specie to override the greater interests of members of other species. Most human beings have are speciesists and can pay what it takes to sacrifice the interest of other species so that to encourage the most unimportant interest of the human species. Humans were to prevent the infliction of suffering on animals based on the ground that the interests of humanity would not be in any way infringed at least to the extent that the interest of animals are affected. However, humanity will be forced to make radical changes on how they treat non-human animals. This will involve checking the diet, farming methods, experimental procedures, gaming like hunting, trapping and in human entertainment; for instance in the zoos. Gary Varner summarizes Singers argument that the principle of equal consideration of interest is the basis of recognition of human moral equity. This is based on the similar interest of all individuals affected by actions and institutions ought to be given equal weight in the evaluation of those acts and institutions. Sentience, which is the capacity to feel pain, (according to Singer) is a sufficient condition to be considered as having interest. Therefore, all non-human animals capable of feeling pain have a basic interest similar to humans, namely an interest in avoiding pain. Humanity should treat the similar interest of all the sentient non-human animals equally in evaluating actions and institutions.According to Peffer, all sentient beings deserve equal consideration of their interests; however, self-conscious beings have a certain number of preferences, and, therefore, these are interests, which are lacki ng in non-self conscious beings. Under such these preferences mainly pertain to the tragedy of death. Consequently, Peffer ends up constructing a hierarchy of beings within the animal kingdom based upon the capacity of self-consciousness and the amount one has invested in ones life.Strong Animal Rights Theory (Tom Regan, Gary Varner and Peffer)In support or refusal of the notion of animal rights, a position that postulates that some non-human animals have the same right not to be harmed or killed just as humans do. This can be considered as a strong animal rights position. On the contrary, the weak animal rights position postulates that moral rights of non-human animals cannot be at any time be identical in strength to those of humanity. Human interest can override animal rights when the circumstances demand.Beings as end in themselvesFrom the standpoint of inherent value which any being subjected to life have, Regan argues that non-human animals as well have rights just the same wa y that human beings have. He claims that Singers grounding an equal moral status on Utilitarian ground is quite mistaken but that animals do have same moral status as human beings which are grounded on rights not on Utilitarian principles. Regan believes that any being that has inherent worth and therefore must be shown respect, under such must not be used as a means to an end. He thus opposes the use of animals by human beings either as meals, sports or any other way since these are some of the ways of devaluing the inherent worth of the animals. Through these activities, human beings use the animals as a means of satisfaction of their needs as a mere means towards an end.Against Singers postulation which has a focus on the beings interest, Regan insisted that what matters is the individual who has the interest, and not interest itself. Only interest in themselves on focus, utilitarianism would allow the most obscene acts just to make the maximum number of people happy. The moral rights generate duties not only to refrain from inflicting harm upon fellow beings with intrinsic value but also to consideration of their support when they are intimidated by other moral agents. Nevertheless, Rights are not absolute, but may be overridden in certain circumstances especially when rights of different individual are in conflict. Nonetheless, these cases lead to overriding ones right should be at best minimized.Weaker Animal Right Theory (Bernard Rollin, Mary Midgley, Mary Ann Warren and R.G. Peffer)Mary Midgley argues for compassion, not interests or right. Compassion is less abstract than equality. It does not require other animals to have the same traits as humans, but one needs only to feel empathy avoid causing other sentient beings to suffer. She finds Si...