The Issue of Animal Rights In the Modern World - Essay Example

THE issue of animal rights in the modern world by Introduction The problem of equality is one of the most difficult problems in today’s world. People tend to have equal rights, regardless of their social status, religious, national or racial characteristics. The struggle against gender, racial and other forms of discrimination is a major challenge, however, a feature of this situation is that the pursuit of equality in the world completely ignores the interests of animals. People kill animals just to eat them. People kill animals to create beautiful fur. Scientists from around the world conduct experiments on monkeys, rats and rabbits to invent a new drug. However, we must ask the question of whether we have a true equality. Such equality takes into account the interests of people but the interests of animals are constantly being ignored while in fact all animals have a moral right to humane treatment of them as an integral part of nature. This paper examines the issue of animal rights in their capacity to suffer and feel pain just like humans. Every day more and more people realise that there should be no discrimination in the human world. Anyone who says that the racial differences between human beings are the reasons for discrimination is wrong. In fact, racial or cultural differences between people cannot be a basis for discrimination. None of the human race can be considered the most perfect. This is due to the fact that in general, all human races have the same set of human qualities, since people are primarily human beings. Discrimination thus cannot rely on the racial characteristics of people, because individuality is not determined by its racial characteristics. Each person is a unique creature as a result of various factors (genetics, education, environmental effects, etc.) and no one has the right to believe that one race is superior to other races. Thus, we can push the harsh accusations against discrimination in human society, and to show its absurdity. However, in the opinion, the problem lies in the fact that the concept of equality is interpreted only as equality in human society. Philosophers from around the world are considering the problem of inequality in human society, and offer a variety of options for solving this problem. For this reason, it is possible to ask the following logical questions: Why do we strive for equality between people, but ignore animal rights in this regard? Why do we deny the fact that the animals have the same moral rights that protect their lives? How can we call ourselves humane beings if we continue to conduct various experiments on animals and kill them for their meat and fur? As it turns out, the main reason lies in the fact that a person is regarded senior executive in the evolution that has intelligence and is capable of self-awareness. This view ultimately goes back to the Jewish-Christian tradition. According to this tradition, God created people and gave them the opportunity to dispose of all that surrounds them, including the animals. This idea led to the fact that the man was perceived as the most perfect being of all living creatures. The being called a ‘man’ has acquired the right to use animals in his/her own interest. People kill animals and ignore the fact that, as people all animals want to live. The issue of animal rights is complex because in the modern world, human rights are a priority, and few are willing to speculate on the topic of animal rights. Nevertheless, the animals have their own moral rights which determine the need for humane treatment of them. In this regard, one can designate a number of important arguments. First of all, this is due to the fact that animals can suffer like humans. In reality, the suffering is the ability that unites people and animals. Is the ability to suffer a strong argument in favour of the fact that the animals are no less important right? According to Singer (1985), “many philosophers have proposed the principle of equal consideration of interests, in some form or other, as a basic moral principle; but ... not many of them have recognized that this principle applies to members of other species as well as to our own.” In this regard, Jeremy Bentham who was the founder of utilitarianism was the first who paid particular attention to animal rights. This fragment from one of his works shows Bentham’s attention to the problem of suffering: The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? (Singer 1985). Thus, Bentham shows the first serious attempt to understand the rights of animals in their ability to suffer like humans. Languages ​​and special intellectual skills of people do not give them the right to consider that animals are soulless machines that were created for various human purposes. The capacity for suffering is considered by the philosopher as a reasonable cause to fight for the rights of animals. Suffering is what defines any interests of animals. The capacity for suffering as well as the capacity for joy and happiness is a characteristic of both humans and animals. Like humans, animals can experience psychological and physical pain. The existence of the phenomenon called ‘suffering’ makes us strive for fairness and equity. It takes into account not only the interests of the people but also the interests of animals. Regardless of the nature of a being, the existence of suffering causes to consider animal rights on a par with the rights of the people. Of course, the mouse or a cat does not have high intellectual ability in comparison with the human mind and brain. Animals cannot create a world of science and invent different devices and machines. They have no the opportunity to become singers, sculptors or painters. Nature gave them only the abilities to survive in the complex wild world. Nevertheless, the ability to suffer is a very valid reason for equality in the relationship between animals and humans. People always focus on human dignity, believing that human dignity is a direct argument against discrimination. However, animals have equal importance within nature. They also have their own dignity that was given to them by nature. Humanity focuses solely on human rights and interests. However, the attitude to the animals is based on the desire to have pleasure. “The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money” (Regan 1985, p. 13). One could understand the killing of animals if it was necessary for the survival of all humanity. Nevertheless, people kill animals for fun. We kill animals to enjoy the taste of meat. We also kill animals to use their fur. In the end, the animals are not an end but a means. They are a means to obtain pleasure. This situation is extremely unfair and cruel. In todays world, people are able to buy clothes made of artificial fur. In addition, animal food may be replaced by vegetable food. Nevertheless, a large number of people around the world continues to regard animals as soulless machines to be used for their intended purpose. By analysing such cruelty to animals, one can detect the following two main ideas (Regan n.d.). According to the first idea, the animals do not feel pain. Such an idea is paradoxical but nevertheless it exists. Animals do not know what pain is, and therefore the requirement to take into account their interests is unfounded. Animals are soulless machines so people do not have to think about their interests because they simply do not have them. According to the second common point of view, the animals are capable of suffering, but this capacity cannot be equated to the human ability to suffer. This view implies a hierarchy of living beings. In this hierarchy, the man is seen the master of the world and the animals can be used as an object or resource. As previously noted, these views back to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Although the Bible does not say that animals are soulless machines that cannot suffer, however the overall tone of the Bible shows the consumer attitude with regard to animals. In particular, the Old Testament is full of different stories about the bloody sacrifices that confirm this idea. Following this logic, a man is a being with much more developed primarily mentally features in comparison with the animals. The man has a high intellect and capacity for reflective activity that cannot be observed in animals. However, this representation is associated with a conflicting situation. Let us imagine a mentally ill person or a person who suffers from mental retardation. In fact, they are not much different from animals because they lack the ability to think properly. However, nevertheless if we offer to be treat them like the animals we will automatically be seen as cruel barbarians. What does this mean? This means that regardless of the mental and intellectual characteristics of people they have a higher moral status in comparison with the animals. There are many examples when animals such as pets show remarkable ingenuity and even cunning. In other words, many animals have developed intelligent features but for some reason no one is trying to take this fact into account. The requirement for equality must be fair and assume the equality of all living beings having the ability to feel pain and suffer. Like humans, pets can suffer not only from physical but also from psychological pain. Their capacity for suffering is the most compelling argument in favour of the humane treatment of animals. Like humans, animals also have moral rights. Animals have a right to life. Furthermore, animals have the right to decent conditions of existence. This means that testing on animals and killing them for commercial purposes should be considered as a direct violation of their moral rights. Modern society has all opportunities to achieve a just equality worldwide. To sum up, the analysis of the problem of equality around the world allows one to see that equality is seen only as the equality between people. However, this notion of equality is not fair. Animals also have their moral rights, because they are able to suffer like humans. The capacity for suffering is the foundation that makes it possible to take into account the moral rights of animals. Intelligent differences between humans and animals are not a valid reason to deny the moral rights of animals. Otherwise, people who have problems with mental activity should be deprived of their moral rights, but this is not happening. Fair equality is the equality that takes into account the interests of not only people but also animals. Animals, in turn, have a moral right to protection of their life and the creation of decent conditions for its existence. If human society wants to be called a fair society, it is necessary to strive for a just equality. Cruelty to animals that are seen as soulless machines is a road to nowhere. Reference List Regan, T 1985 ‘The Case for Animal Rights’, in Singer, P (ed), In Defense of Animals, Basil Blackwell: New York, pp. 13-26. Singer, P 1989 ‘All Animals Are Equal’, in Regan T& Singer, P (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey, pp. 148-162. Read More