People sometimes do not consider the feelings of animals when making decisions. As a result, animals are constantly injured or killed in todays society. Animals are sentient beings that deserve happiness, and humans should recognize their feelings and rights. In this paper, I will argue that we need to adopt animal rights ethics by explaining utilitarian principles and by critiquing egoistic, religious, ethical subjectivist, and anthropocentric viewpoints on the issue.
Utilitarian ethics looks at what will cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number of beings. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory, focusing on the consequences of actions instead of the actions themselves. According to utilitarianism, all sentient beings should be given consideration in society. This includes both humans and animals, which can feel both pain and pleasure. In todays society, animals are used for test subjects, food, clothing, etc. and are sometimes harmed in the process. Their pain in these situations should be taken into consideration.
Metaphysical dualists, believers in anthropocentrism, state that humans are the center of the universe and are the most significant beings. Supported by Darwinism, metaphysical dualists believe that humans are the strongest and fittest beings. Thus, contrary to utilitarianism, many humans may argue that they have the power to do as they please with animals and they should be allowed to do so. The naturalistic fallacy notes that it is unethical to say something that is the case morally ought to be that way. Simply because humans have the capability to harm or kill animals does not mean that it is morally right for them to do so.
Metaphysical dualists may also argue that giving rights to animals would be degrading. However, white, male Americans once said the same when asked to give rights to all humans. Now, all colors and types of humans on the planet have been given rights and individuals no longer feel that it is degrading. Expanding rights to all sentient beings would mean greater pleasure and happiness for all.
Christianity may be used as a defense in harming animals. There are verses throughout the Bible that state that man rules over the animals. Yet, close interpretation of the Bible is very difficult, for the Bible contains many vague and contradictory passages. The Bible was once used to support slavery, while most people now agree on slaverys immorality. God did not write the Bible, so his messengers may have included inaccuracies. Also, other religions, such as Hinduism, believe humans should treat all beings with respect. Thus, there is not one, universal source of morals.
Ethical subjectivism is sometimes used to argue against animal rights. Ethical subjectivists believe that morality is relative. In other words, what is right or wrong depends on the beliefs of the individual person. Thus, people say that it is all right for another person to become a vegetarian, but they do not wish for that person to impose their views on others. Yet, some moral values should be universal. Slavery, for example, may have continued if people viewed its morality as a matter of opinion. Likewise, being kind to sentient beings should be a universal value.
Some may argue that granting animals rights would mean giving rights to plants, bacteria, spiders, and insects as well. Trying to do so would be impossible. Believers in utilitarianism, however, believe that all sentient beings should not be harmed. This includes all creatures feeling pain and pleasure. Evidence and research has shown that animals can, in fact, have painful and pleasurable feelings. Whether bacteria, spiders, insects, and plants have feelings, in contrast, is debatable.
Individuals may claim that fighting for animal rights would mean trying to stop predators in the wild from killing other animals. Yet, animals in nature must kill to survive. Trying to stop them from killing one another would disrupt the food chain and be both difficult and immoral. Killing animals for food, clothing, animal testing, etc. is not necessary for human survival, however.
Some individuals claim that animal rights would mean giving both humans and animals equal treatment. This would entail allowing them to go to school, run for office, vote, etc. However, there are differences between humans and animals. Animals would gain no pleasure from these activities. Just as children would not be capable or derive pleasure from holding a public office, neither would animals. Thus, animal-rights involves taking into account the interests of all sentient beings and doing what would be best for them.
Animals do not understand laws and morality, which some use to justify harming and killing animals. Yet, just because they do not understand certain rights does not mean that they do not deserve them. Mentally retarded individuals and young children do not understand their rights. However, they are still treated with respect and are not harmed or killed. Animals deserve the same treatment as others, despite their level of understanding.
Egoists may, in their own self-regard, decide to harm or kill an animal. They may believe, for example, that eating meat will make them well-rounded, healthy individuals. In the long run, however, people may be healthier as vegetarians than by eating a combination of plants and meat. Unlike plants, meat contains high fat and cholesterol. Perhaps if egoistic individuals were informed of the long-term benefits of animal rights, they would be less likely to oppose them.
Animals are often harmed or killed by humans. Utilitarianism stresses the importance of happiness for all sentient beings. Animals are capable of feeling both pain and pleasure, and should thus be treated with care.
