Do Animals Have Rights
Should animals be harmed to benefit mankind? This pressing question has been around for at least the past two centuries. During the early nineteenth century, animal experiments emerged as an important method of science and, in fact, marked the birth of experimental physiology and neuroscience as we currently know it. There were, however, guidelines that existed even back then which restricted the conditions of experimentation. These early rules protected the animals, in the sense that all procedures performed were done so with as little pain as possible and solely to investigate new truths. Adopting the animals' perspectives, they would probably not agree that these types of regulations were much protection, considering the unwanted pain that they felt first followed by what would ultimately be their death. But, this is exactly the ethical issue at hand. For the most part, animal rights are debated in regards to two issues: 1) whether animals have the ability to rationalize or go through a logical thought process and 2) whether or not animals are able to experience pain. However, "it will not do simply to cite differences between humans and animals in order to provide a rational basis for exclud
So, only human beings fall within the scope of moral concern. If non-human animals act like they experience pain, but somehow do not, states Miller, then it would be strange happenstance. Since the utilitarians want to reduce as much pain as possible, they would need to decide which would be lesser: the pain felt by the animals during experimentation or the pain felt by humans if there were a lack of animal experimentation. Remaining on the topic of reason, I turn to the theories and views held by one of the great German philosophers of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. Looking at this argument, one might say that humans are greedy and disrespectful of God's creation. The "categorical imperative" states that one should never make an exception for one's self by acting on reasons that one could not will every other rational being to act on. First of all, I think that there is way too much human reliance on animals to stop their use for human benefit. This, Bernard Rollin claims, would be silly. This concept should be restricted to considering only the pleasure and pain of those directly involved, which is difficult in this case since almost all people and animals are implicated into this dilemma. However, Kant does assert that we should avoid cruelty to animals. If this were so, then it would rule out the possibility of rights for most animals, with maybe the exception of some primates. Finally, I ask this question to one who is totally against the slaughter of animals for any reason. ing animals from the scope of our moral deliberations" (Rollin 7). The animals, for example, lose in the case of animal experimentation since they receive the bulk of the pain. Another theory that is against cruelty to animals in such a manner is an approach that is epitomized in the writings of both St.
Common topics in this essay:
Bernard Rollin,
Catholic Church,
Hedonistic Utilitarianism,
Lee Miller,
Kant Kant,
Kant's Mill's,
Animals Rights,
Carolina University,
Immanuel Kant,
Looking Kant's,
animal rights,
moral concern,
rights animals,
animal experimentation,
human benefit,
ethical dilemma,
pleasures pains,
pleasure pain,
principle utility,
objects moral,
animals feel pain,
question animal rights,
objects moral concern,
non-human animals act,
scope moral concern,
|
Acceptance Essays
