Human being's Ethical Obligation in Respect to Other Animals - Report Example

HUMAN BEING’S ETHICAL OBLIGATION IN RESPECT TO OTHER ANIMALS By Date Introduction The issue of animal rights is a contentious that has received strong criticism over the years from many scholars, experts and academicians. The issue has generated a lot of debate with different stakeholders from animal rights groups and campaigners arguing and advocating for animal rights (Gruen, 2011). However, despite the numerous assumptions and hypothesis that have been established, to date there is no concrete act or legislation has been established to advocate the rights of animals. Thus, animals have continued to be on the receiving end as they are selectively segregated by human beings depending on the places they are in the world (Milligan, 2010). This paper examines the moral obligation human beings have towards other non-human animals within the ecosystem to ensure they too live unconditionally (Gruen, 2011). Human beings have an ethical obligation to protect and respect the rights of other animals in the ecosystem. Human beings are moral creatures, thus have an obligation of ensuring their actions promote the well-being of other non-human creatures on earth. Animals are part of the ecosystem within which human beings live and, therefore, it is the obligation of man to conserve the surrounding where animals live (Regan, 2003). Conserving their surroundings in this context implies that they should strive to ensure animals within their proximity are protected from any form of danger or destruction by ensuring they live perpetually; hence, saving them from extinction (Linzey and Clarke, 2005). Biologically, human beings are regarded as the highest creatures psychologically, thus they ought to make rational judgments concerning the preservation of other creatures. Ethical obligations do not entail domestication of animals only, it goes beyond the boundaries of domestication (Linzey and Clarke, 2005). For this reason, despite the fact that those animals live in homesteads does not justify the uncouth treatment, they receive from human beings. However, some people argue that human beings are the custodians of the earth, thus have an authority over all other creatures (Regan, 2003). That argument is right but having an authority over something does not mean irresponsible or inhumane behaviour. The issue of non-human beings being accorded rights, however, from a broader perspective is a limitation to people and a defecation to the logic of common sense. For instance, if human beings subscribe and uphold to animal rights, then they cannot use animals for food, transport or recreation (Regan, 2003). However, from a theological perspective critics of human rights can argue that God granted human beings the right to dominate over other animals as well as using them for food. Therefore, enacting legislations and acts to protect animals will be theologically incorrect as it acts to limit the authority humans have over animals. The primary sources for this assignment included works by Gruen and that one by Linzey and Clarke. I choose to rely on these books entirely due to the exclusive nature in which they have presented their scholarly works regarding this topic. To begin with Gruen indulged in a wide scope research thus providing a conclusive argument that is why is preferred to rely on this scholarly work for my paper (Gruen, 2011). On the other hand Linzey and Clarke was ideal for this particular assignment since it gives a chronological history of how ethics in relation to animals has evolved over time with the significance of each being elaborated in detail (Linzey and Clarke, 2005). The book by Beauchamp and Frey was ideal for this paper since it is a rich source of information concerning animal rights thus making it easier to deduce the moral obligation that human beings should have with respect to other animals. On the other hand, the work of Caspi and Reid (2002) compliments the works of Milligan as they both tackle the issue of animal rights and what should be done to actualise these rights being implemented. The books give a view of what is expected from human beings being the custodians of the environment. The scholarly work of Francione and Garner (2010) and the works of Sunstein and Mussbaum, (2004), offer numerous debates on the topic; thus, aiding in making informed decisions on the argument of the responsibility people have in upholding animal rights. Conversely, Palmer (2010) gives an in-depth approach to animal rights by discussing the issue in the context hence a god source of finer details that will be relied upon to come up with the essay’s arguments. Finally, the works by Regan (2003) evaluates the rights of animals and how human beings are applying them in real life situations. Rene Descartes, a French philosopher, argues that non-human animals do not think since they are merely biological robots that act on the instruction. Given the fact that they lack the ability to think for themselves they deserve no rights as they will not be aware whether or not they are being accorded special treatment as a result of their rights (Francione and Garner, 2010). Conversely, St. Thomas Aquinas, a Christian theologian, argues that man was given the authority to take care and subdue over earth. Animals were created to serve the interests of man thus any action that is done is within their mandate of caring and have authority over them. It dismisses the idea of animals having rights, thus implying human beings have no moral obligation to non-human creatures (Caspi and Reid, 2002). Regan (2003) argues that, any creature that is living ought to be handled with dignity no matter how small or big it is. He goes on to say that, this is the only true way people can appreciate the gift of life and help to solve numerous cases in which animals have fallen victims of torture in the name of satisfying the needs of man. For instance, it cannot be justified when a person loads heavy luggage on camels for transport purposes just because he/she can afford to own that animal. Machines that are non-living in nature have load capacities that they can accommodate; it’s against logic to overload a living thing if a machine can be dignified with a particular load capacity. Thus, it is prudent to understand that just like human beings animals too have feelings of pain, anger and die (Regan, 2013). Thus, they should be accorded utmost respect even in the situations when we are using them to achieve our motives. In that scenario, it is morally right if the owner would have just loaded a significant load onto the camel, an amount, which the animal can comfortably carry but not causing physical harm or strain by overloading it (Milligan, 2010). Moreover, from an ethical perspective, human beings have an obligation to respect other animals by upholding their rights to ensure they comfortably exist in the environment without any difficulty (Caspi and Reid, 2002). Therefore, it is justifiable to extend research on this topic to promote the ongoing advocacy for animal rights in the society as cases of animal abuse are increasingly becoming more often and complicated. Take an example of a large-scale farm rearing herds of cattle for beef production. To meet demand for meat production, the producer must wait until the animals mature. However, owners can apply advanced technology in the process of cross-breeding to come up with desirable traits in the animals. In essence, genetic engineering can be used to get breeds that are resistant to climatic diseases and have high-quality beef. Once the cattle mature, they are taken to abattoirs where machines slaughter approximately four hundred cows in one hour. From the case above, human beings are taking an initiative to rear cattle, which is a modest and noble idea since they are conserving them by providing them with food and shelter. However, it is pointless to accord cattle all luxury by providing them with enough food and shelter only for their lives to be suddenly cut short for beef (Linzey and Clarke, 2005). The case above can be likened to a hunter who goes hunting to kill an animal for meat. The idea behind this reasoning is that ethics cannot be applied selectively, that is, you cannot provide them with comfort and finally, turn against them and slaughter them. The case demonstrates a situation where human beings are using animals arbitrary to advance their own interest without taking into consideration their moral obligation in safeguarding the rights of animals. For instance, the process of genetic engineering is unethical and against the rights of animals. Animals just like human beings have similar levels of biological complexity, thus their birth and death is of great significance. The same manner in which people cannot be experimented it is, therefore, uncouth to animals who share the same biological complexities with people to be subjected to the same process (Milligan, 2010). That notwithstanding, research indicates that higher mammals have conscious; thus they are aware that they exist. The fact that animals cannot reason morally should not be used as an excuse to subject them to unethical practices. Animal Rights and Human Obligations Philosophers argue that science is objective in the sense that it is free from morals and values while others indicate that values are embedded in science, thus its ideologies are based on moral values. It is from this notion that a debate on the rights of animals has ensued on the use of animals in research activities. Regan states that numerous research findings have been made on animal rights issue; some advocating for animal rights while others disputing the idea that animals are not moral beings (Regan, 2003). There are two main issues that surround the rights of non-human beings and the obligation that people have towards them. One is exploitation and entails people using animals as instruments to advance their interest. In most of this cases the animals are abused. On the other hand, is animal liberation, which is the act of according animals equal moral rights as human beings, thus prohibiting the use of animals to advance personal interests. Milligan argues that a majority of the people feel comfortable using animals to satisfy because animals have been regarded as subjects of human beings traditionally. The issue of their ethical obligation towards those animals is thus, of less importance since their primary goal is to benefit from them. It does not make any logical sense to justify the use of animals for food but oppose their use for scientific research. In both cases, the rights of the animals are violated as they are reduced to objects that serve to meet the interests of others (Milligan, 2010) The American Veterinary Medical Association argues that human beings have a moral responsibility to take care of the welfare of animals, and this entails; all aspects of their well-being, nutrition, medical care and proper housing. However, the association extends its argument by stating that animal welfare is not similar to animal rights the latter is an overrated aspect that cannot be actualised in real life (Gruen, 2011). Their idea of the issue of animal rights and the ethical obligation that human beings have towards those creatures revolves around the utilitarianism idea that propagates for the greatest good of the greatest number of people. In this notion the association goes ahead to state that if an animal is used for a course that benefits the most significant number of persons, its individual harm does not supersede the benefits of and thus such actions are morally upright (Gruen, 2011). Conversely, some researchers have criticised the idea with a counter argument that states if a human being can be utilised for scientific research. Thus, the actions against animals can are justified because both scenarios satisfy the utilitarianism idea of mutual benefit for the greatest number of individuals (Shapiro, 2000). The Worldview theory elaborates the natural hierarchy of living things. According to the theory, human beings are ranked the highest followed by animals and plants are the lesser organism as the theory implies. The hierarchy arranges living organism in the manner that the lower bodies serve as the instruments for the organisms above them. For instance, plants will act as tools for the animals’ needs. Just like in a food chain the lesser organism serves as food for the higher body thus no further justification is required concerning the morality of animals. The same manner in which animals are justified to feed on plants that are fellow living organism is the same manner I which it is morally correct for human beings to use animals to satisfy their interests. It is prudent that the theory advocates that people have no moral obligation towards animals as all their actions are justified by the order of nature (Linzey and Clarke, 2005). The same sentiments are reflected in the Kantian theory that asserts that autonomy is the critical element that is used to assess the actions of people and animals. Both human beings and non-human animals have needs that are as a result of desires. But it is only the human species that have control over their desires in the sense that they can be rational in the manner in which they advance their desires (Milligan, 2010). Given the fact that animals lack the ability to rationalize their actions they lack morality and thus have no intrinsic value. Based on this assumption, human beings have no ethical obligation towards animals since they cannot justify morality in their own actions. However, Tom Regan a proponent of animal rights that any being that is alive has inherent value and anything that has inherent value has intrinsic value and thus has to be respected (Milligan, 2010). Animal rights agitate for non-human animals to be viewed within the moral circles, thus any actions that human beings commit should be consistent with their ethical obligation towards fellow living organism. Life is valued to all living organism no single creature can be quantified to have a more precious life than the rest (Beauchamp and Frey, 2011). Research indicates that even in higher animals like elephants and primates whenever one dies the rest are engraved in a state of grieve and mourning. The social setting and their corresponding feelings that are attached to social circles in human beings are also witnessed in animals. It is, therefore, the ethical obligation of people to ensure animals are treated with dignity (Beauchamp and Frey, 2011). Conclusion Ultimately, the extreme actions that are often taken against animals such as donkeys, camels, dogs among many others, which are inconsistent with animal rights, should be avoided. However, the idea of animals being bestowed with rights is vague since it limits the extent to which man can interact with them (Sunstein and Nussbaum, 2004). Rights being given to animals mean they are capable of leading distinct lives without the help of human beings which is not possible. It means people will be rearing animals for no economic gain a situation, which does not make sense in the modern industrial world. Therefore, man has a moral obligation of regarding animals as lawful subjects to man. Bibliography Beauchamp, T. L., & Frey, R. G., 2011. The Oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Caspi, J., & Reid, W. J., 2002. Educational supervision in social work a task-cantered model for field instruction and staff development. New York, Columbia University Press. Francione, G. L., & Garner, R., 2010. The animal rights debate abolition or regulation? New York, Columbia University Press. Available at http://site.ebrary.com/id/10433227. [Accessed 16 Feb. 2015]. Gruen, L., 2011. Ethics and animals: an introduction. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Linzey, A., & Clarke, P. A. B., 2005. Animal rights a historical anthology. New York, Columbia University Press. Available at http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=909039. [Accessed 16 Feb. 2015]. Milligan, T., 2010. Beyond animal rights: food, pets, and ethics. London, Continuum. Palmer, C., 2010. Animal ethics in context. New York, Columbia University Press. Regan, T., 2003. Animal rights, human wrongs: an introduction to moral philosophy. Lanham, Md. [u.a.], Rowman & Littlefield. Shapiro, L., 2000. Applied animal ethics. Albany, NY, Delmar. Sunstein, C. R., & Nussbaum, M. C., 2004. Animal rights: current debates and new directions. New York, Oxford University Press. Read More