Should Animals be used for Food or Experiments - Essay Example

Module Arguments by some Philosophers on Fact That Animals Should not be used for Food or Experiments There are philosopherswho assert that if human beings have rights, non- human creatures and animals should also have their privileges and rights taken into consideration. Numerous disagreements have arisen about this proposition owing the results that would come about following recognition of animal rights. There are those that argue that animals are different from human beings while others argue that animals are the same a human beings thereby their rights should be respected. This paper discusses the two sides of the coin: one side of the argument states that human beings are different from animals therefore should be treated differently while the others claim that animals’ rights should be respected and they should not be used for experiments or for food. Human beings should answer one imperative question while focusing on how they should treat animals. ‘What is distinction or the difference between human beings and animals with regards to their moral status?’ If they cannot answer this question, then it is a high time that they accepted that human beings are just like animals thus animals deserve acceptance and a moral status. Although some people argue that animals do not have consciousness, suffering, reasoning capacity as well as autonomy, it does not validate the fact that human beings should treat animals differently basing on their moral status. As a matter of fact, philosophers argue that despite the fact that human beings show different features and behavior from animals, there is no philosophical or intellectual defense that can give explanation for the denial of moral status on animals. Simply because animals cannot recognize their moral status or rights, it does mean that they should be treated in an inconsiderate manner or with disrespect (Franklin 77). Philosophers consider the killing of animals and using them for food and experiments a violation of human rights. When people keep animals for food, they do it for their own gratification. This means that the rights of animals are disregarded to ensure that human beings are satisfied and gratified. Owing to the fact that animals exist in the same way humans do, they should be allowed to live freely and enjoy their lives without human interference. As a matter of fact, while taking into account topics including animal rights, it is important to learn important lessons like it is morally wrong to do specific things that we cannot do to fellow human beings. For example, if the animal rights state that it is morally wrong to keep animals for experiments or food, then we should treat animals in the same way we treat our fellow human beings. In the similar manner that poaching or hunting animals for food or other valuable objects including their skins and tusks should be considered as hunting a fellow human being and killing them. Thereby, human beings should bear in mind that just as it would hurt an individual whose pet has been injured or killed, it should be stated to be unethical or morally wrong to breed animals for experiments or food (Franklin 83). On the other hand, human traditions and rituals have been performed over the years across various cultures. Nevertheless, through the numerous years of civilization these rituals have begun to fade away as they seem to be incoherent and antagonistic to societal and ethical norms in the contemporary world. For instance, numerous individuals in various societies kill animals during their traditional ceremonies. This has caused a lot of dissatisfaction among animal rights activists since they state that these rights are morally unacceptable. In spite of the numerous ethical issues surrounding the topic, human traditions are more important than human rights and it is not morally wrong to kill animals for the purposes of culture and traditions. To start with, the argument that supports the preservation of animals at the expense of human beings is simply hypocritical. This is owing to the fact that the mere existence of human beings jeopardizes animal life and their surroundings. Several studies show that the expansion of residential and industrial areas endangers the lives of animals (Taylor 191-222). Basing on this argument it would be unreasonable to disallow human beings to live in a given area or perform their activities at the expense of animals. The same concept applies to disregarding old traditions to save human lives. Secondly, human beings are an essential part in society and important in the development of generations to come. This is because rituals and traditions are a important way of linking people to their past by ensuring that important aspects and factors within a certain tradition are maintained within community. Thereby, the act of killing animals in traditional rituals is a symbolism of a more important meaning and a more significant value than the life of the animal itself. It is similar to a community, it is history and the foundation on which future generations are formed. Therefore, this shows the significance of human traditions and the need of the animal killings or sacrifices that are made in the process. I believe that there are significant differences between human beings and animals. This supports the case against animal rights and adds that animals are different from humans in various ways. The first argument is based on rationality (BBC). Human beings are rational beings who think through their actions and their consequences. On the other hand, St Thomas Acquinas asserted that animals act based entirely on their instincts while human beings actions are based on a rational thinking process. This difference created the borderline between human beings and animals and is considered as one of the best criterion for evaluating a being’s moral standing. The second argument is that animals are not conscious. Philosophers including Rene Descartes view state that animals are simply biological robots. This meant that they are not entitled to have any rights or any moral consideration. On the other hand, human beings make their decisions consciously and think them through. This means that there is a clear disparity between animals and human beings. Animals were created and put on earth to serve human beings. This argument is got from the Bible and reflects how human beings should view and treat animals. Theologians including St Augustine argue that animals are subject to the use by human beings. St Thomas Acquinas argued that the universe is constructed as a hierarchy in which all creatures at the lower levels were to serve human beings (BBC). This means that human beings could use animals as they wished. This meant the use of animals for experiments or human sacrifices is justified. Philosophers and theologians argue that only beings that have souls deserve to be considered ethically and morally. Animals do not have souls therefore do not have any moral rights or duties. However, this argument is controversial because it is not possible to determine existence of a soul in an experimental way (BBC). Animals do not behave morally therefore should be treated in the same way as human beings. Animals behave selfishly and look out for their own interests. Animals do not have regulations and rights against other animals have regulations governing how relate with one another. Furthermore, animals are not members of the moral community and lack the capacity to make moral judgments. Human beings have fundamental rights while animals do not. In summary, the debate on whether it is wrong to keep animals for food, experimentation or cultural practices has been ongoing among various philosophers. Those that support animal rights argue that human beings and animals are alike and be treated in the same way. While those that oppose the argument state that animals are different from human beings and since they are lower in the hierarchy level, human beings should treat them as they wish. Works Cited BBC. Animal Rights. Web. n.d. Franklin, Julian H. Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Print. Taylor, Sunaura. "Beasts of burden: Disability studies and animal rights." Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences 19.2 (2011): 191-222. Read More