Philosophy - Ethical Theories - Admission/Application Essay Example

Teacher’s May 16, Philosophy - Ethical Theories Animal Rights Campaigns for equality are by no means new. Oppressed people have always stood up for their rights as sooner or later they realize the power of their speech and actions. Animals, too, have been the victims of inequality since the dawn of times, but they, on the other hand, cannot protest for their rights articulately. This task, therefore, has befallen on the shoulders of humans to speak for the unjustly treated animals. Certain groups of animal liberationists are taking radical steps towards the elimination of speciesism as these values and other human centred ethics have major flaws. It has been claimed by animal liberationists that animals should be deemed as persons and their legal rights as equals should be legislated. Equality to animals does no assert that animals possess the same characteristics as human beings or have the same needs; rather, it is focused on the equality of consideration. It is not a question of facts but that of morality as it is our moral obligation to treat animals with care and respect. This phenomenon has widespread effects and implications as it requires us to make significant changes in our lifestyles, once we realize our responsibilities towards animals. Not all human beings are the same. This fact cannot be denied as every individual is distinctly different from another. The physical, mental, and emotional characteristics of one person can never be exactly similar to those of the other. Nevertheless, it does not mean that any one should be treated unjustly due to their abilities or attributes. If a person possesses less than normal intelligence level or is challenged by physical disabilities, it does not denote that s/he should be demeaned by alleging eligible for the treatment given to healthy, mentally, and physically fit people. Similarly, people from different casts or colours deserve equal amount of respect and welfare services irrespective of their ethnicity and religion. The term speciesism was coined by psychologist and philosopher Richard D. Ryder in 1970 (Sztybel 2). Speciesism denies animals’ equal standing because it encompasses the core idea of all forms of discrimination which involves harming others or refusing to help and benefit them due to arbitrary characteristics like gender, skin colour, species etc. Not easing the suffering of another living being or aiding in doing so is an abomination of the moral justification as every human is bound morally to treat fellow living beings on this universe with utmost care and devotion. Moral justification affirms the belief that various environmental aspects have a right to exist and it is our moral duty to allow and facilitate them to continue and persist (United Nations Environment Programme 3-4). It is expounded by United Nations General Assembly World Charter for Nature, which was signed in 1982 that all species have a moral right to exist (United Nations Environment Programme 1). These values are the focus of environmental ethics; the utilitarian systems of several philosophers also impregnate the essential basis of moral equality within themselves. The Utilitarian justification interprets various environmental aspects valuable, as they benefit individuals economically or are essentially vital or directly necessary to the human survival and existence. Speciesism can also be defined in the words of Peter Singer as biasing or being inclined towards the interests and benefits of the members of one's own species and against towards those belonging to other species. This term is analogous to other forms of discriminatory tyranny and oppression, the same sort of bigotry as racism and sexism. If we expand the boundaries of discrimination on the basis of arbitrary characteristics to include species other than human beings, it will be clear that animals deserve to be treated equally and we are treating them most unjustly. Peter Singer rejects ethics as an ideal system which is noble in theory but is impractical and cannot be implemented successfully. He has argued his case by identifying deontological approaches to support utilitarianism as it initiates with positive achievable goals and does not involve intricate details and complexities. Utilitarianism holds the greater good as its main principle and this value is perfectly applicable to animals too. Singer argues that in order to assess and evaluate the consequences of our actions regarding those affecting animals, it is essential to take the interests of animals into consideration seriously, and to weigh any adverse and detrimental effect on those interests implemented due to human actions as part of the consequences of those actions. Humans have failed to do this because of speciesism and prejudice towards the favour of the members of their own species, which results in a systematic devaluation of animal interests. Singer claims that speciesism is no more morally defensible than any other forms of discrimination that exclude humans from the scope of moral concern (Sztybel 6-7). Anti- animals’ liberationists argue that speciesism is not analogous to sexism as men and women are more or less similar to each other, except for their morphology. They both possess the ability to think rationally. Taylor's analogy, for example states that a woman can make rational decisions so they have a right to vote. Dogs or other animals, on the contrary, do not have any comprehension of the significance of voting so they cannot have the right to vote. Women and men resemble each other far more greatly than other animal species, so it can be argued that men and women are more similar to each other so they must have equal rights while animals are not alike humans, therefore they should not avail the same rights as them. This might be assumed correct to a certain level, but it does not go far up after that. This notion can be explained simply by the fact that the significance of the differences between humans and animals cannot be evaded, and it must be established that these differences and variations must spawn differences in the rights of humans and animals. There are undeniable differences between men and women, yet Women Liberations’ movements are protesting for equal rights due to the fact that it is determined and maintained that these differences account to different rights. For instance, feminists hold that women should have the right of abortion and should be entitled to pregnancy leave from work. Even though they demand for equal rights of men and women, it is absurd to think that men should get abortion choice and pregnancy leaves as it is meaningless for them. Similarly, talking about a dog’s right to vote is absolutely pointless as it does not know how to vote. Equality does not mean that we allot the same rights to every group or that we must treat the members of all groups in similar manner. These implications depend totally on the nature of the members of the various groups. Thus, the basic principle of equality is not treating everyone the same way, irrespective of their needs, but it is equality of consideration. This implements equal consideration for different beings and different groups may lead to varied treatments and different rights (Singer 188). Anti-animal liberationists also present the argument that human life is more important than the life of an animal and, thus, it can never qualify as equal to lesser beings. According to them, animals do not possess the ability to take rational decisions, compose complex, articulate speech, and/or form emotional attachments. This can be explained by the simple fact human beings are not treated differently because of their intellectual capacities. This statement asserts that the interests of those individuals possessing more than 100 IQ level should be preferred over those possessing below 100 IQ levels. Even if animals show less intelligent traits than human beings, it does not mean they should be subjected to inequality and cruelty. Research has proven that many severely intellectually challenged human beings suffering from mental disorders or various ailments, show equally diminished mental capacity of animals. Some animals like primates display signs of innate learning behaviours and high intelligence levels as they possess the ability to learn American sign languages and various symbolic communication techniques, some of which are on par with that of human children. In addition, some humans lose the capability of speaking due to physical injuries, psychological trauma, genetics or birth defects. These humans resort to sign language and are not capable of articulating their thoughts aloud. Similarly, humans suffering from psychological and behavioural disorders like autism and schizophrenia etc. are incapable of befriending many people and forming emotional associations (Sztybel 8). Their impairments do not render them ineligible for receiving consideration and equal treatment as other humans with normal mental and emotional heath. Therefore, it is evident that intelligence or rationality does not provide a sound basis for treating unequally or providing animals any less consideration than such intellectually challenged human beings. Jeremy Bentham is another philosopher who realized that the principle of equality is not just for the members of one's own species but to all of them. According to him, equality does not depend on whether an organism can reason or talk, but on the fact whether they can suffer. All animals are capable of feeling pain if they are hurt. Peter Singer is also of the opinion that all beings capable of suffering are worthy and eligible of equal consideration (Singer 190-191). Thus, it is concluded that the capacity for suffering is the criteria through which the laws of equality can be established. If an organism is sensitive to pain, which all animals are, then it is of utmost importance to take significant action to ease their suffering and provide them with equal rights which are suitable to their needs, not to those which are established as ideals by humans. Inhumane practices like vivisection, animal testing, use of animal fur and skin for fashion apparels, and barbaric acts done to animals to manufacture high culture food must be stopped. Works Cited Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 1st. New Jersey: Ecco Press, 2001. Print. Sztybel, David. “The Rights of Animal Persons”. Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, Volume 4, Issue 1, p2-8, 2006. Print. United Nations Environment Programme, First. World charter for nature: United Nations General Assembly Resolution. 1st. 5. Indiana University, 2011. 1-4. Web. Read More