Singer's Distinction between Self-Consciousness and Sentience - Essay Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Institution: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Philosophy, morality and society Date: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Philosophy, morality and society Introduction Over the years, a number of activist groups have been on the forefront campaigning for the rights of non-human animals. Some believe that animals should be regarded as equal to human beings(Regan & Singer 1989).For example, Peter Singer observes that over time, there have been dramatic changes with regards to people’s attitudes on morality. Singer notes that in the previous years, issues such as abortion, sex outside marriage, pornography, euthanasia and same sex marriages were considered to be taboos and grievous immoral acts however with time, these factors have been accepted and are considered normal in the society. In some countries, some of these practices have been legalized. Similarly, Singer urges that the rights and moral status of animals should be viewed in a different light (Singer 2002). This paper seeks to discuss Singers distinction between self-consciousness and sentience. It will depict what this distinction means the moral status of animals. Moreover, this paper will discuss my personal belief on whether non-human animals have different or similar moral status to human animals. Singer's distinction between sentience and self-consciousness With regards to the philosophy of animal rights sentience is a term commonly used to describe the ability to experience or feel pain and pleasure. A good number of animal rights advocates argue that any being which is sentient has the right not to be subjected to suffering. On the other hand, self consciousness can be defined as a sense of self awareness. According to Singer, sentience is one of the vital characteristics that justifies the right of any being to be given equal consideration that is awarded to human beings. Singer considers sentience, a capacity for enjoyment and suffering as the only morally justifiable boundary that people should use to concern themselves with the interests others. Therefore he believes that sentient beings whether human or non-human are worthy of moral considerations and that the interests of sentient beings should be regarded as equal (Singer 2002).Singer considers capacities such as self-consciousness and many others to be irrelevant to the notion of whether non-human animals deserve moral consideration. Therefore Singer distinguished sentience and self-consciousness on the basis that sentience is the only capacity justifies the moral consideration of any being whereas self-consciousness is a commonly used fallacy that forms the basis for the moral gulf that is thought to separate humans and non- human animals. Based on Singers view, as long as any being is sentient, it deserves moral consideration. For example, when non-human animal are kicked or tormented they have the ability to feel pain thus they are sentient according to Singer this in turn warrants them to moral consideration (Singer 2002). Moreover, Singer considers the killing of beings based on the preference of their continued life as even worse than killing without any preference. Therefore, self-conscious beings are not just receptacles of pain or pleasure, furthermore they are not replaceable. Singer notes that to take into account the view that beings that are non-self conscious are replaceable implies that they do not have value, he argues that such beings are valuable (Singer 1979). He further notes that, as long as sentient beings are conscious they have interests in experiencing less pain and much pleasure. In as much as sentience places emphasis non- human animals within an equal class of moral consideration with human beings, this does not imply that the non-human being has personal interest in their continuous existence. Basically, Singer makes a distinction between the class of sentient being by noting that self-conscious beings are irreplaceable whereas beings that are non-self conscious are replaceable (Singer 1979). Generally, Singers arguments tend to imply that all sentient beings equally deserve moral consideration .Therefore based on his sentiments when the interests of a human being collides with that of an animal such as a dog, no being should be given an upper hand moral consideration. It is worth noting that, according to all moral grounds in society it is unacceptable to give preference to an animal at the expense of the life of a human being (Singer 2002).Nevertheless, Singer observes that the life of a human being is of more worth than that of an animal in spite of this he does not accept the fact that human beings deserve a greater moral consideration than animals by virtue of their specie. Singer notes that the specie of a being is a morally irrelevant characteristic. Instead he accentuates on the fact that moral consideration should be based on the characteristics of the being. By considering the characteristics of a specie, one is able to determine the losses or gains that will be incurred if the being is subjected to a particular treatement. Springer suggests that emphasis should be placed on the characteristics of a particular being rather than the individual(Singer 2002). Personal outlook on the moral status of non-human animals Personally, I believe that the moral status of non-human animals is different from that of human beings. In contrast to the beliefs of Singer and other proponents of equal moral consideration for animals, I believe that there are great differences between animals and human beings. These differences provide substantial evidence that the moral status of non-human animals is different from that of human beings. For example, unlike animals human beings have the capacity to reason and make rational reasons. This shows the superiority of human beings to animals with regards to their capacity to reason and make rational decisions. From a religious perspective, the superiority of human beings supersedes that of animals. For instance in the book, Genesis 1:20-28 God commanded man to have dominion over everything that is non-human. Based on these factors it would be implausible to argue that animals and human beings have the same moral status (Francione 1995). In reference to the sentiments of Kant (1963), it is evident that the moral status of non-human animals is different from that of human beings. According to Kant, human beings do not have duties towards non-human beings, instead, human beings only have a duty towards themselves and other human beings. Therefore, cruelty towards animals is immoral mainly because it is has negative impact on human kind. Kant argues that cruelty towards animals is against man’s duty towards himself and other human beings. For example, the increased killing or poaching of animals can bring about detrimental impacts on man’s environment. It could also decrease man’s sympathy towards the suffering of animals thus causing man’s natural tendency towards animals to be weakened. According to Kant, animals merely act as a means to man’s ends. Based on the sentiments of Kant(1963), I find that it would be implausible to argue that animals and human beings have the same moral status (Kant 1963). Society’s moral intuition, urges that human beings should prefer and give an upper hand to their own. For example, if a wild animal threatens to kill a human being, measures that necessitate inflicting pain or killing the wild animal can be used in order to protect the person. It would be inhuman or even immoral to risk the life of a human being in order to protect the interests of the wild animal. The arguments used in the course of advocating for equal civil rights for minority are ethically considerable and justifiable since they use similar societal moral intuitions. Evidently, there are no significant variations between human beings that support inequalities on the basis of sexual orientation, gender or race. However, when it comes to human beings and animals, there are no considerable ethical arguments that support equality in the moral status of human beings and animals on the basis of society’s moral intuitions (Posner 2001). Roger Scruton, a British philosopher argues that rights must be accompanied with obligations. Scruton argues that every privilege imposes a burden on other beings with no such privileges. In short ,one’s right is another person’s duty. Therefore, according to Scruton, the notion of animals having similar moral status like that of man is a strange cultural shift revolving around the liberal world view. This is mainly because the notion of rights and responsibilities makes no sense when it spreads across other species. Scruton accuses, proponents of equal moral consideration for animals, for attributing traits to animals that are unrealistic, fiction and implausible. It is in these unrealistic traits that a number of animal rights proponents base their arguments on equal moral considerations for animals (Scruton 2000). Based on the sentiments of Scruton (2000), I find that it would be implausible to argue that animals and human beings have the same moral status. Conclusion According to Singer sentience, a capacity for enjoyment and suffering is the only morally justifiable boundary that people should use to concern themselves with the interests others. Therefore he believes that sentient beings whether human or non-human are worthy of moral considerations and that the interests of sentient beings should be regarded as equal (Singer 2002). Generally, Singer’s distinction between the class of sentient being is based on the notion that self-conscious beings are irreplaceable whereas beings that are non-self conscious are replaceable (Singer 1979). His distinction between sentience and self-consciousness imposes that all sentient beings equally deserve moral consideration. Personally, I believe that the moral status of non-human animals is different from that of human beings. This is mainly because, there are great differences between animals and human beings that provide substantial evidence that the moral status of non-human animals is different from that of human beings. Bibliography Francione, G., 1995, Animals, property and the law, Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Kant, I., 1963, Lecture on ethics, Harper & Row, New York. Posner, R., 2001, Animal Rights, Retrieved on May 27, 2010 from Regan, T., & Singer, P., 1989, Animal rights and human obligations, Prentice Hall, New York. Scruton, R., 2000, Animal rights, City Journal, Vol 10, No. 3, Summer 2000. Singer, P., 1979,Killing Humans and Killing Animals,” Inquiry 22: 145-56 Singer, P., 2002, Animal Liberation, Ecco, New York. Read More