Animal Rights: Protecting Animals' Moral Status and Moral Rights Essay
In this society, it is under law for all people have the basic rights under the universal declaration of human rights - Animal Rights: Protecting Animals' Moral Status and Moral Rights Essay introduction. As stated, this only benefits humans, where humans rule the world. So where does the rights of animals come from? Many people do not understand animal rights and how we should treat them equally and why. Through animal research and experimentations, humans are getting benefit and gains in the obscene inhumane ways; the poor animals are suffering through pain and distress, even though they have moral status and rights.
A right is a particular way of protecting interests, to say that an interest is protected by a right, is to say that interest is protected against being ignored or violated simple because this will benefit someone else. So what are animal rights? Animal rights is the idea that animals have the same rights as humans, to live free of suffrage, just as important as living individuals, and with the same moral status as humans. According to Doris Lin, an animal rights attorney and the Vice President of Legal Affairs for the Bear Education and Resource Group, “They have a right to be free of oppression, confinement, use and abuse by humans. However, rights are not absolute in the sense that their protection has no exception.
More Essay Examples on Animal Rubric
David DeGrazia, the author of many scholarly animal rights books dealing ethical and philosophical issues, explained that animal rights might be unfamiliar to most people because of the daily abuses and killing toward animals that are viewed as socially acceptable, and unconsciously ignored due to normal day-to-day activities and even festivals with animal killings for fun. 12) Animal abuses can be ranged from animal experimentations and testings, cosmetic testings, live animal shootings, to abuses of farm animals, these abuses are widespread and are considerably immoral and inhumane. Animals have moral status and moral rights as much as humans does, however it might seem less important compared to humans, even though animals are not thought of as machines and property. Gary L.
Francione has respectfully argued that animals and humans are individuals, where both are living creatures, but because of the idea that they can not think rationally or abstractly, that makes many believe it to be acceptable to treat them as property. (xxviii) Even young children or mentally handicapped people can not think rationally or abstractly, yet no one would think of putting them through biomedical experiments, or a source of food. xxix) In Gill Langley’s way of theological thinking, religiously in a way, animals lack souls. Having no obvious logical connection between these “facts” and the judgement that it would be wrong to do somethings to humans that it would not be wrong to do to animals. (25) Animals do not exist for humans and our uses, they have the same moral status as humans and are to be treated well with respect, for their own sake, because they have moral importance in their own right, not having relations with humans. DeGrazia 13)
David DeGrazia had mentioned three increasingly strong sense of “animal rights” in his book, “The moral-status sense”, in the loose sense of the term “animal rights”, the animal have at least some moral status. “The equal-consideration sense” means that we must give equal moral weight to humans’ and animals’ comparable interest. And last of all, “The Utility-trumping sense”, referring to us humans, that animals have certain vital interest that we must not override even in an effort to maximize utility for society. DeGrazia 20) Many animals are treated as mere property and resources, causing an unbalanced and unhealthy relationship. And because of the mistreatment of animals in cruel acts, in the long run, many humans might be mistreated also, to the point of how animals are now being treated. (DeGrazia 14) “Human being can give or withhold their informed consent animals cannot. That’s the morally relevant difference. ”, animal rights activist Gill Langley recalls. (25) Many believe that an animal’s moral status is of less than a human’s, yet still allowing animals to have moral rights.
Humans believe that we are special and unique, different from what we classified as “animals”. Whatever attributed to the idea that we are different than other living creatures has been discovered, as there are no characteristics to distinguish humans from animals. All traits that was once believe to be different are found throughout other species. (Lin) If intelligence was to set apart the difference, children, the elderly, mentally retarded people would also be classified as “animals”, yet this have nothing to do with the moral statuses of animals, and they are still not to be mistreated. xxix) Animals are able to suffer, therefore worthy of our moral consideration. As Gary L. Francione, an author of animal rights book and animal activist, has stated as the solution of taking animal interests seriously, it is necessary to give content to the confessed rejection of the infliction of unnecessary suffering on animals by applying “the principle of equal consideration” or the rule that likes alike are treated to animals. (xxv) As argued, animals do have moral status, so the principle of equal consideration could be applied not only to humans, but also animals.
Logical that this principle is giving everyone’s comparable interests equal moral weight should apply to all beings who have interest, unless a relevant difference between the beings that justifies unequal consideration. David DeGrazia explains unequal consideration, which falls under another framework of the animals’ moral status, which is the “sliding-scale model”. Human deserve full, equal consideration, while other animal deserve consideration in proportion to their cognitive emotional, and social complexity. 37)From an animal rights perspective, animal experimentation is illegitimate irrespective of the human and or animal benefits deriving from it.
This case is based on two propositions: that animal experimentation is unnecessary and that animal research causes too much suffering for too little or no benefit. The development and use of alternatives, on the other hand, has played and will continue to play a major role in the reduction of animal usage. On the second proposition, Rowan shows how difficult it is to weigh the benefits of animal research against the suffering inflicted. Animal Rights, 63) Every animal is able to suffer, a recognition to the knowledge that humans can, also referring back to the point of which they also have the same moral status as humans. As per an object, incapable of suffrage, are not worthy of our moral consideration besides the economic, esthetic or utilitarian value of itself to the property owner. Utilitarianism is also the notion of which maximizes benefits over harm of the animal, where all interests, including the animals’ are considered.
The consideration of the animals are also not justified if harmed even if purpose is served, by the fact that the concept of utilitarianism is broken. Another equal consideration theories of animals is the strong animal rights view, the animals, like humans have rights in the “utility- trumping sense”. The utility-trumping sense have vital interest that we must not override, even in an effort to maximize the utility for society. (Animal Rights, 20) Billions of animals are being slaughtered, abused, and harmed every year; causing enormous amounts of pain, suffering and distress upon them.
It is wrong for humans to cause extended harm to animals for no compelling reason, for the fact that they have moral statuses. We have obligations to animals, and these are not simply grounded in human interests. However, the issues of moral status and equal consideration are far more fundamental and far-reaching in practical impact as DeGrazia have stated. (38) Animals have as much moral status and rights as humans do, and are most definitely worthy of our consideration in their lives.