Animal Ethics: Which Theory Is Strongest And What Are The Real World Implications?

The Philosophy of Animal Ethics: which theory is strongest and what are the real world implications?

Animal rights and the ethical treatment of said animals falls under the philosophy of ethics and has always been addressed even as far back as Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, even if it was not always centre stage. Animal ethics s a sub branch of the ethics branch of philosophy, entirely devoted to the relationship between humankind and animals. There are three general categories of philosophical thinking on the subject: indirect theories, direct but unequal theories, and moral equality theories. The outcomes and real-life implications of these approaches are surprisingly similar, and none allow for harming animals, no matter their moral status,

Sentience is used here to describe the ability to experience and be aware of suffering. Direct theorists believe that the ability to experience pain and pleasure is directly relevant to morality: there is no justification for entirely discounting another being’s pleasure or pain. Supporters of the direct theory often use criticisms of indirect theory to support their claim that animals do have direct moral status. Since the Argument from Marginal Cases shows that marginal cases have direct moral status, then this applies to animals as well. However, direct but unequal theorists also believe animals are not equal to human beings despite their direct moral status. They base this on claims that humans are not just sentient, but the only beings that are rational, autonomous and self-conscious; only humans have rights and duties; only humans have the ability to act morally; and only humans are part of the moral community. It is interesting that what humanity decides separates humans from animals is what they claim makes them superior and in control: ‘’it’s funny that what separates human from beast, turns human into beast’. The most important factor in the philosophy of animal ethics is how it applies in the real world. Even if humans are inferior, the idea that they are directly morally responsible for animals does not seem to allow for the use of animals for their own pleasure at the animal’s sake. If animals’ moral status depends on sentience and their sentience depends in their ability to feel pain, then killing them or harming them does not seem acceptable. Even Halal and Kosher meat does not ensure the correct treatment of animals and, at the very least, the moral responsibility requires animals to be treated better in farm and factory settings. Not to mention, the Argument from Marginal Cases can be applied