Discuss The Arguments Against Phenomelogical Ethics

The main purpose of this essay is to support my opposition of animal rights by using phenomenological ethics. The meaning of this theory is the ability to see ethical dilemmas through the eyes of the “others.” To apply phenomenological ethics, one must put themselves in someone else’s, and in this instance the animal, or as many consider it, the nonhuman animal’s point of view. I will argue by explaining how phenomenological ethics can teach us to minimize speciesism, realize the pain and suffering animals go through, and why they should be considered a part of the moral community. Speciesism, as explained by Peter Singer is, “…discrimination against nonhuman animals just because of their species,” also saying that, “…it violates the principle of equal consideration-comparable interests” (548). What he means by this is that both humans and animals have similar interests such as avoiding pain, and because they are comparable, humans and animals should be given “equal weight.” Singer also gives the argument, “If animals could be raised and killed without suffering- if their lives could be pleasant and their deaths painless-then there might be a net balance of good over evil in the process” (548-549).

Some may say that animals have weaker moral rights, known as less inherent value. Animals may lack “…the ability to reason, intelligence, autonomy, intellect, or some other valuable property,” as stated in the book. In Regan’s defense he says, “…if this concentration is true, then we must say that some humans who lack these characteristics also have less inherent value…” (551-552). We use phenomenological ethics in this argument by putting a human, with mental illness for example, and an animal, considering they have the same characteristics, in an equal position for moral