Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Topic on animal rights
Arguments for animal rights
Arguments for animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Topic on animal rights
Arguments for animal rights
Arguments for animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
It is fathomable that it is an exceedingly difficult position to face and the decision the judge came up was equally challenging, however, there must be an alternative resolution. Whether we look to deontological the inquiry ethics and ethical decisions based on an emerging behavior the manner on this court case shed light on what is deemed “right” or the other hand who is honestly worth protecting. I have to irradiate that Immanuel Kant the German philosopher statement applies in this court case, “that all consequentialist theories missed something crucial to ethics by neglecting the concept of
There is also an inclination to believe that if he had not suffered from this state, then the offence would not have been committed, specially not in the barbaric way it was done. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the accused willfully preformed the act, nor that the mens rea and the actus reus coincided while he was not in a psychotic state. (Roach, 113) Related to this finding is another element that supports the verdict of the Honorable Judge, which is the Principle of Fundamental Justice that states that no one should be “punished for morally involuntary actions.” (Roach, 82) A person who successfully raises the mental disorder defence is considered to be morally innocent of the act because they were not acting freely, in this case, free from psychotic ideations.
Even today, there are many moral and philosophical issues that divide the United States because they create very polarized opinions and beliefs. One such philosophical issue is the moral permissibility of infanticide. Mary Anne Warren, a philosopher, presents her liberal yet controversial views on the issue of infanticide in the postscript of her article, On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. However, the anti-infanticide arguments pose problems for Warren’s position because they justify the immorality of infanticide through the physical similarity in resemblance of neonates to human beings. These arguments also claim that the destruction of a viable infant is needless because even if the infant’s biological parents reject the infant, there are many other parents who are willing to adopt and nurture that infant.
He states that Fred’s pleasures do not make it morally permissible to torture puppies. This is compared to livestock in factory farms because, they undergo the same kind of torture and abuse. His conclusion is that, torturing puppies and eating meats from factory raised cattle are one in the same and is immoral. Machan addresses two different issues in his argument, animal rights, and animal liberation. Although they are fundamentally different subjects they are both contributed to animals for the same reason.
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.
Rachel and J. Gay-WIlliams have opposing ethical positions regarding physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. Rachel backs his ethical approval of euthanasia with two strong arguments. His first argument is the “Utilitarian version of the argument” (Rachels, RIght Thing To Do, 350). This basic claim is that “any action or social policy is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in the world or to decrease the amount of misery” (Rachels, RTD, 350). Since those who would be euthanized would become relieved of their unpreventable and agonizing pain (i.e. misery) euthanasia would be morally right.
Questions of morality are abstract and extremely touchy. They are subject to enduring debates regarding its origins, nature, and limits, with no possibility of a consensus. Although the theories on morality often pursue diverse angles, among the most interesting ones that have come up in recent times revolve around the question whether human beings are born with an innate moral sense. Some scholars hold the view that humans are born with an inherent sense of morality while others believe the opposite that humans are not born with an innate moral sense holds true. By using Steven Pinker’s
In “The Brain on Trial”, David Eagleman claims that the justice system needs to change its sentencing policies due to the discoveries of neurobiological diseases that cause their sufferers to behave in socially unacceptable ways and/or commit crimes. Eagleman uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to present his viewpoint. The most important one is his appeal to logic. By using mostly examples, along with direct address to the readers, Eagleman is able to argue that the legal system has to modify its sentencing policies to take into account the advances made in neuroscience due to the increase in the amount of accused and/or convicted people who have been found to have harbored some kind of brain disease or damage. Eagleman
“Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.” according to Steve Landsberg. The insanity plea, although helpful in some cases, can be abused by a multitude of convicted criminals looking for an effortless trial. The first example of the insanity defense ever being used during a court case would be in the 1843. When Daniel M’Naughten tried to assassinate the prime minister of Britain, he was put on trial and was later acquitted due to being found not guilty by reason of insanity.
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).
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.
There is no rational premise for denying that animals have inherent value, therefore humans have no reasoning for denying animals of rights. Animals have the capacity to form relationships with their species, feel pain and pleasure, make decisions, and understand their life’s importance to them, therefor by inherent value, animals should have rights. An objection to this argument could target the claim that all animals have inherent value. Regan states that subjects-of-a-life have inherent value, and that the difference between subjects-of-a-life and other living organisms is that subjects-of-a-life are aware and value their lives.
The debate whether abortion is morally permissible or not permissible is commonly discussed between the considerations of the status of a fetus and ones virtue theory. A widely recognized theory of pro-choice advocates can be thought to be that their ethical view is that fetus’s merely are not humans because they lack the right to life since they believe a fetus does not obtain any sort of mental functions or capability of feelings. Although this may be true in some cases it is not in all so explaining the wrongness of killing, between the common debates whether a fetus does or does not obtain human hood, should be illustrated in a way of a virtuous theory. The wrongness of killing is explained by what the person or fetus is deprived of, such as their right to life; not by means of a heart beat or function of one’s body, but by the fact that it takes their ability of potentially growing into a person to have the same human characteristics as we do.
Introduction In this essay, I will be comparing Deontology to Utilitarianism. I will attempt to substantiate why I am justified in arguing that Deontology is a superior moral theory than Utilitarianism. A Discussion of the Main Elements of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a moral theory developed by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1947 – 1832) and refined by fellow countryman John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873).