Social Contract Theory And Kantianism: A Discussion Of Animal Rights

1574 Words7 Pages

The discussion of rights may vary greatly for the many different people of the world. A basic right for one population of humans may be just a wishful desire for another population. Human rights have changed and developed as civilizations have grown and advanced, with standards being set in place in many countries of the world. According to both Social Contract Theory and Kantianism, having autonomy is a prerequisite for having rights: if you are not capable of recognizing moral rules and choosing to obey them, then you are not entitled to those rules' protection. However, the standards for the rights of non-autonomous beings has been and continues to be a volatile subject. Many philosophers have weighed on the subject with varying opinions. …show more content…

A potential objection is that even if the animal doesn’t possess the capacity to comprehend moral judgment, it still has a right to live. A right, according to Cohen, is simply a claim that one party can make against another party. How can one know if the animals aren’t making a claim for their life if they cannot communicate in our own language? An animal’s action can suggest it is making a claim for its life, such as running away from a human captor or attacking the captor. If the animal is claiming for its life with its actions, then we must be violating its rights, maybe not on legal grounds, but on moral grounds. This argument, however, does not hold up. Picture this scenario: Suppose the statement was true, and the animals really are claiming for their lives against humans. The humans are attempting to develop a vaccine to fight off a new dangerous virus, and they need to test it on live subjects. The option is to either test it on animals and save human lives; or not test it on live subjects at all, as it would be too dangerous to test unfinished vaccines on humans, and spare animal lives. By testing vaccines on animals, we are claiming our own right to live. Would an animal’s right to live truly trump our own right to live? If you subscribe to the idea that humans are the only or primary holders of moral standing (anthropocentrism), most certainly not. To say otherwise would mean that animals have a greater moral standing than humans which, considering they don’t possess a moral capacity, is simply not the case. If it does come down to such a scenario, the animal’s rights would still not apply, making them invalid. Thus, even if animals did possess the right to live, it would be utterly pointless relative to our

More about Social Contract Theory And Kantianism: A Discussion Of Animal Rights