In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
”(509) Since people think humans are the wisest creature in this world, the most important thing for humans lives in this world is to enjoy everything. Also, no other animals are as influential as humans is an inherent thought in humans’ brains. However, every life is equal. It is hard to give other creatures labels whether they are or are not morally important enough.
This concept of equality that the critique argues, introduces the treatment of marginal human beings and non human animals, but does not focus on the vast differences that currently exist between these two parties. All things considered, if these critiques hone into species differences and proportionally how to treat each individual party with respect then these critiques would all-inclusive. All things considered, these critiques remain myopic because they do not consider conflicts of interest, especially in regards to the
Humans give animals less moral consideration, than other humans because they believe that animals are lower on the totem pole. This is anthropocentrism because the human is ranking themselves as the most important living creature, and this unhealthy thought process leads to destruction and
Was King Henry a hero or a fraud? I believe that King Henry was a hero because he showed many traits of it and proved himself to be a hero with many acts. King Henry showed leadership and courage, he also earned his soldiers trust and showed them that he was trustworthy himself. He also promised his soldiers that he would fight with them and he kept that promise. First, I believe King Henry shows leadership to his troops by encouraging them to go into battle with him.
One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).
With the discrimination of human beings, annihilation of masses, and carnage of innocents, history shows how vicious human actions can be. What separates people from animals that kill others just the same? Human being’s ability to use reasoning to validate the cruel actions they take upon others. People often use logic and premises to warrant the actions they wish to take. It is convenient for them to have this ability to allow them to do as they please as long as they can support it with reasoning, not only for others to understand, but also to make themselves feel less guilty of their desires.
In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism
In human history, a number of oppressed groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly in the eye of consideration. This means that when the matter concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value, and consideration. Where this equality is not determined by an assembly of facts like that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical strength of their bodies. This is what Peter Singer brings up in his essay: “All Animals are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when matters concern them. Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have some of the fundamental rights and equal consideration that are given to humans.
In his work, Tom Regan establishes the rights of animals used in scientific research. He argues that when animals are used as objects of experiment, they are not respected and their inherent value is not acknowledged. Having inherent value, as defined by Regan, is a state, in which a being is not just a vessel, but a being with a complex mental life. All who have inherent value are to have it equally.
I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.
Not So Human Rights Isn’t it upsetting that in where we live calling any harm of animals’ ‘‘animal torture’’ isn't a hyperbole. How sad it is that you keep a man's "best friend" on a leash. It’s unbearably common for the abuse of animals to be swept under the rug because it makes consumers in this capitalistic world feel less horrible about themselves. There are those for and against this issue but it’s beginning to look like those for animal rights are gaining the upper hand. There are whole charters in support of animal rights as shown below.
Rights are against the use of force and they are our primary if not only our means of survival. There is only one fundamental right: To live successfully, a man has to make his own choices as well as animals too (Roleff,2014,p.33). There is a huge difference between giving animals their rights which is less than human beings and not to give them rights at all. Nowadays animals are presented in many places of entertainment such as zoos and cruces as well as aquariums where the audients pay a lot of cash to watch fun and exciting things going on, it sure makes us happy but what about the animals are they happy too? Are places of entertainment appropriate for wild animals to live in it normally?
Animal testing is a phrase that most people have heard but are perhaps still unsure of exactly what it involve. Whether it is called animal testing, experimentation or research, it should be defined as all testing methods on animals including, medical exploration, cosmetics, toxicology trialing, and psychological examination involving animal subjects. It is used to assess the safety and effectiveness of medications and beauty products as well as understanding how the human physiology works. While supporters believe it is necessary practice, those against animal testing believe that it involves torture and suffering to animals. Medical research is the hardest case of proposition in the debate whether animal testing should be banned or not, since it has previously yielded substantial benefits for humanity.
(“Human Society Organization,” 2014, para.5) Should there be such thing as animal rights? Yes they should because animals are just like humans. They have a nervous system and can be affected both physically and mentally. Animal Exploitation comes in many different ways. Some
