Do Animals Have Rights - Essay Example

Do Animals Have Rights?

In the modern day and age, the humanitarian tendencies have become pervasive, permeating every field of human activity. In terms of philosophy, the variety of questions have been raised in regard to the different moral and ethical issues, among which the concept of rights being redefined and revised in its meaning and application. In part, not only human rights but also animal rights are being currently widely discussed by both the scholars and he public. The concept of animals rights is still an ambiguous one, depending on the philosophical perspective taken and the implications of logical reflection. On one hand, a lot of people take a view of the necessity to secure animal rights that are as close as possible to the human rights. On the other hand, the undeniable utilization of animals for food and manufacturing purposes contradicts such a stance and often serves to justify the opposite beliefs. For the reasons of ambiguity of the issue under regard, a lot of people tend to find themselves in between these two radical positions, which became the separate and valid opinion all of its own. As a result, the discrepancy between the modern views on the animal rights is still broad, and this causes philosophical discussion of a great scale, where arguments and perspectives are intertwined and quite confusing. This paper will aim to argue that animals do have rights, however, with consideration of the utilitarian perspective, finding the author’s opinion in the middle of the two radically opposite opinions, which means that not only animals have rights but that humans often neglect them due to significant reasons.

Arguments in favor of animal rights: ethics in defense of animals

Democracy today is the most widespread political system in the world, becoming ubiquitous not only in political sphere but also invading the mentality of people. With this said, the concept of rights is currently being widely reevaluated, with differing implications becoming more and more popular. In terms of the current discussion, the attractiveness of the arguments in favor of animal rights is growing every day. Animal rights are currently widely recognized and fought for, being “respected, even at the cost of great burdens for human beings” (Cohen, p. 91). The justification of this point of view does not only undertake ethical stances but also philosophical and logical considerations of the many manifestations of such categories as will, cognition, feelings, equality, moral standing and even soul. Ethically and morally, the arguments of both the public and the scholars working on this dilemma incline toward protection of animal rights basing on the growing awareness among the human beings of but small differences between them and animals.

This awareness gave rise to the necessity of philosophical and logical justification of this perspective. The major scholars arguing in favor of animal rights, for example, Singer with his fundamental work Animal Liberation commonly rely on the argument of lack of obvious differences between animals and humans, which leads to the need of recognition of the rights of both on the equal grounds. The concept of equality, curiously, is probably the strongest argument in favor of animal rights since it, when recognized, does not allow to ignore the obvious injustice and abuse of animals. Pollan (p. 311) specifically addresses the concept of equality in his book “Omnivore’s Dilemma” by introducing the category of ‘speciesism’, the form of racism based on discriminating animals that are ‘below’ human beings. The author poses a question of treating similarly animals and people with significant cognitive disorders like retardation of Alzheimer’s disease. The answer to this, when looked from the perspective of equality, is to prefer an animal while it not only has higher capacity to feeling pain but also obtains better abilities of moral consideration.

It is further important to note that the rise of the animal rights movement was not ungrounded. Starting already in the eighteenth century and gaining unusual uproar in the twentieth, it was based on the awareness of animal abuse, the most of the abuse being directed at farm animals, who are being killed in large numbers in order to satisfy the human need for meat. In addition, other areas also practice animal abuse including textile, cosmetic pharmaceutical industries, animal experimentation, etc. And while the latter arguably necessitate animals, killing animals for meat is not necessary due to the fact that people have already achieved the level of development of civilization when they arguably can survive and even are better off without meat consumption (Roleff and Hurley, p. 168). With this, the meat-eating argument became the most significant to negate as the most cases of animal abuse are attributed to it. Without meat being the essential necessity for human beings, there is no more arguments to justify even the smallest causes of killing or tormenting animals within the framework of general equality recognized.

Notably, these arguments seem obvious and logic when constructed this way, yet the problem still persists. In his reasoning, Singer (p. x) indicates that people are most often not indifferent toward animals, and it is ignorance rather than anything else that results in animal abuse. Davis in the article “The Messy Middle” talks about similar problem yet indicates that, most commonly, it is not ignorance but impossibility of answering the question in a radical form that leads to people disregarding it altogether. In order to comprehend the scope of the problem, it is important to gain awareness of the opposite side of the discussion.

Arguments against animal rights: utilitarian perspective

Currently, the opinions of the majority still reside within the sphere of utilitarianism, as most people still eat meat and use products that were manufactured from or with the help of animals including clothes, cosmetics, etc. Nordin (pp. 1-2) constructs the case for utilitarianism, regarding animal rights primarily from the point of view of the function that animals perform in the modern world. There is no doubt that animals are useful as source of meat and related products. Naturally, certain areas like medical experimentation that use animals bring obvious use for the society, creating treatments of the diseases and illnesses and thus implying the vitality of refusing animal rights for preservation of human lives. In terms of meat-eating, the argument that people do not need meat to survive is arguable, as well, since the scholars indicate the uniqueness of certain proteins that only can be found in meat (Roleff and Hurley, p. 63). With this, the proponents of this side of the argument state that utility of killing animals is above the moral ground, and thus animal rights are not valid for the human society.

A great argument within the framework of the discussion about animal rights is disclosed by answering the question of whether animals have moral standing. As was argued above, this consideration is based on the understanding of the capacity to feel pain and suffer, which leads to the reasonable conclusion that animals do have moral standing (Rachels, p. 14). Still, there is more to this question since only possessing moral standing does not ultimately relieve the animals from the fate of being considered from the point of view of utilitarianism. On the contrary, it is notable that animals cannot be treated the same way as humans, as even humans should not all be treated alike. With this, not only the issue of animal rights is being doubt but even the logic of the concept of equality, which appeals to the existing of the possibility of different levels of equal treatment of both animals and human beings.

In addition to the utilitarian perspective, there is another one, which has little to do with function and tends to deconstruct the value of animals from the stance of culture and traditions. This argument indicates that vegetarians refuse to participate in part of the cultural traditions of their ethnos, which are commonly connected to meat-eating (Pollan, p. 313). With this, not only the disengagement with the ancestry happens, but also losing of part of personality might become a common thing. The dilemma of vegetarianism as such does not obligatory refer to the necessity of eating meat but to the meaning that it has in terms of the complex nature of communities that in part were heavily based on the culinary norms. With this, the problematic of eating meat and the resulting question of animal rights gains a deeper, spiritual perspective, and thus results in the necessity for many people to find their ground in between the radical opinions expressed in this matter.

The opinions in between: the ‘messy middle’

With both sides of the discussion presenting strong arguments, the majority of people commonly finds it hard to decide, which side to take. Choosing between the tradition and novelty, between morality and utility, most of them commonly lack the preseverance to make the final decision. The interesting question that applies here is where to draw the line for the animal rights. Do all animals have rights or only some of them? Should people treat mammals and insects in the same ways? What are the factors that separate the animals with the rights from those that are devoid of them? Rachels (p. 15) addresses this dilemma by indicating the controversies of this issue by stating that answering this question unequivocally brings people closest to becoming arbitrary in their decisions. Generally, the virtual ‘line’ that is being drawn by the majority is between the animals that can suffer, and these “are owed moral consideration, even if those that molest us or those we may make good use of may be killed–but not ‘tormented’” (Machan, p. 166). With this said, the opinions found in between the radical opinions often pay attention to some part of the considerations that go from both of these perspectives, either pro or against animal rights.

Davis refers to this central position as ‘the messy middle’, the gray zone, where there are no definite answers, as well as there is no necessity of looking for them. People simply eat meat because they like it, as well as they have their beloved pets, sometimes in the form of the same animals they eat, for example, rabbits. This, however, does not constitute a moral problem because people are capable of killing and caring for animals at the same time (Davis, n.p.). This perspective is shared by most people today, and thus it is the most realistic of the opinions that were discussed above and presents the best image of how people today should choose to answer the question of whether animals have rights.

Conclusion

With this, it is important to note that the discussion of animal rights stays among the most heated to the current day. The arguments of both radical viewpoints become stronger with the logic delivering the central message: it depends on the perspective that allows to decide, which side to take. On one hand, the concept of equality is important to consider since animals are capable to feel pain and to suffer. Naturally, this does not allow to treat them as objects, and the accusation of speciesism causes further to recognize them as equal to people. Moreover, meat eating is no longer an essential necessity as it was for the people of ancient civilizations. On the other hand, utilitarian perspective argues in favor of functions that animals perform, starting with medical experimentation that saves people’s lives, and to meat-eating still being in some cases necessary. Also, meat-eating has deeper roots and meaning as part of the cultural traditions and thus should not be easily casted away. In addition, the concept of equality might be argued, as well, since all people cannot be treated equally, and it is definitely transferred to the question of animal rights. With these arguments presented, people in their majority often lack understanding of the comprehensiveness of the problem, which leads them to leaving things as they are, without a final decision on the issue being made. This gray zone they find themselves in does not necessitate to seek answers, as well as it allows to simultaneously eat meat and care for the pets. And, while neither of the sides of the discussion presents undeniable arguments, this messy middle seems the most logic alternative of all, meaning that animals do have rights, but it is necessary for people to neglect them at times for achieving more important goals.