The Term Speciesism - Coursework Example

Humanities Ethics Chapter 7: The Moral Status of Animals Singer introduces the term "speciesism." What does he mean by this term? How is it relevant to his argument? How would Scruton respond to this concept? Singer uses the term speciesism to refer to the belief that human beings are more important than no-human animals simply because they belong to the species Homo sapiens. He believes that just like humans, animals are also entitled to the enjoyment of their rights. They need to be treated with equality just as humans treat themselves. In trying to provide the justifications by humans of why they believe they possess more rights than animals, Singer provides a criterion that he calls simple membership in the family of Homo sapiens. He notes than humans use this criterion as a moral importance that they believe succeeds in excluding all animals and including all humans. He points variations that exist among humans themselves that sometimes could undermine the essence of equality among human beings themselves. For instance, he argues that there exist essential differences among humans such as different sizes and shapes, different intellectual abilities, differing moral capacities, differences in ability to communicate effectively, different capacities to experience pain and pleasure, differences in the amount of benevolent feeling and sensitivity towards others. According to singer, humans equally have differences as mentioned hence it could be incredibly erroneous to assert that there should be equality among humans when the differences are profound. In other words, Singer posits that humans then, have only a common ground in which they share a fundamental characteristic. That is, all human beings belong to the species of Homo sapiens. So the existence in the human species confers the moral responsibility of humans to control the lives of other non-human beings. He considers this understanding arbitrary and that human beings should not take advantage on the difference that exist among groups to see themselves as morally important. According to him, “speciesism” exists and human beings have hijacked the differences in species to confer among themselves moral importance vis-a-vis that of animals (White, 328). Scruton would almost go contrary to the assertions of Singer. But certain distinction need to be made in Singer’s argument, he defends animals and demand that there should be equality. This simply does not mean that animal right should be exactly comparable to that of humans, or to any extent supersedes that of human. Scruton believes that it may be essential to defend the life and rights of animals but, he makes an emphasis that doing so at the expense of human life makes no sense. He believes that human beings have interests while non-humans do not have interests. They may feel the same pain and pleasure but that ends just there, while humans tend to look at the outcome or how certain actions would impact on them. He then believes that it is not appropriate my any mean feat to terrorize the lives of humans for the sake of protecting the interests of animals. On his radar is the Animal Liberation Front in Britain, which he sites as the most dangerous terrorist groups. He also criticizes the Parliament for acting as if they are the representatives of animals. 2. Human “animal use” runs the gamut from use for food, research, recreation (fighting/hunting), to protection. How would you differentiate between killing bacteria (antibiotics), cockroaches (bug spray), or a rogue tiger, where they pose a real danger to humans? What about using animals in medical research that may save human lives, although the animals may suffer, or die? Should all living things be grouped together under the same rules? Explain. There are very serious moral issues that Scruton cites with relation to animal rights. For instance, he uses the example of fur trade that has seen serious resistance from animal activists. He also cites the situation the Oxford Professor, Blakemore found himself in having to contend with animal activist groups. Singer believes that it is makes no sense sacrificing lives of animals for the superficial gains by humans. Humans too have important lives and should be inclusive within the broad spectrum of beings that qualify for moral importance. In going with the assertions of Scruton, animals should not be viewed to be more important than human beings were such that human beings can suffer at the expense of animals’ lives. One important thing is that instead of killing animals to obtain most of the materials like fur and many of the materials that can be re-produced without having to take their lives (White, 328). If killing a rat or a cat for a research may result in an invaluable medical discovery, which can be used for years to save the lives of human beings then it should not be considered as a sidestepping of moral importance of animals. Bacteria, cockroaches and rogue tigers, all offer no meaningful protection to human beings lives. On the contrary, they endanger to the least peace, comfort and lives of human beings. Consequently, it would be impractical to agitate for the rights and protection of a tiger that has taken many lives of human beings. If the tiger has gone vicious, killing every human being that it come across then there should be no moral justification that defends the life of such animal. In other words, it is the responsibility of humans to protect the lives of animals. At least this imposes certain religious undertones as espoused in the bible according to Christians. Man was given the responsibility of taking care of everything that God created of which all animals were inclusive. However, this does not mean that there should be an uncontrollable destruction of animals. They should be protected at all costs but not that their lives and rights are viewed more important than the lives of humans. It is then not justifiable to include all animals and humans together under the same rules. Animals might be experiencing pain and pleasure but they do not have interests and do not project onto the future impact (White, 328). 3. Warren argues that practical considerations can be used to establish the moral rights of animals, and provides the two examples of (a) the inadequacy of anti-cruelty views and (b) the current trend to frame moral claims in terms of rights. What does she mean by each of these two examples, and how does she argue that they support the establishment of the moral rights of animals? Warren concurs with the majority of the writers that animals have rights. She however in her critique to Reagan who postulated strong animal rights, Warren acknowledges that indeed animals have rights only that they are too weak to be overridden in some extents by the rights of the humans. She identifies the problem of advocating for strong animal rights. She identifies that despite the fact that in most cases animals show behaviors that indicate mental activity; they cannot plan and anticipate the future. She also identifies that insects for instance, have sense organs and brains yet many of them are not sentient. Some insects show behaviors for pain yet they do not experience pain because they lack neurological approach. According to Warren, she agitates for weak animal rights since that would be able to handle problem cases and not require that moral or inherent values be nothing thing or an all. Warren feels that animals cannot be denied the rights to pursue their interest and living things that can feel pain cannot be compelled to feel pain when there are not justifiable reasons. She also states that any sentient being must not be killed when there not enough reason to justify the cause (White, 328). 4. “If chimpanzees…are so like humans, then why not give them basic human rights…Moreover, rights-for-apes advocates want to recognize the other four great apes as persons under law rather than property … In 1999, New Zealand became the first nation to adopt a law giving rights to apes. They are protected from scientific experimentation not in their interest…Do great apes deserve basic human rights? Should they be treated as persons under the law?” (White 409) What values grant a being moral standing? Singer uses the sentient ability of the animals to justify why they deserve or qualify for equality or moral standing. This states that if a being is capable of experiencing pleasure and pain then it should qualify for a moral standing. Others like Warren and Scruton accepts the use of animals for more important things. They both acknowledge the existence of animals’ rights. Scruton for instance observes that it makes no sense to view the rights of animals with so much importance at the expense of human lives or rights. Granting Chimpanzees full human rights is one thing that countries are yet to decide on. They may belong to the same primate class with humans, but they lose on certain essential differences. They are sentient; able to feel pain and pleasure. The question that underlies is whether these animals are capable of anticipating the future because it appears that that it is only way that human beings stand out among all the living things. It is therefore only necessary to protect and safeguard the lives of these animals. That is according to Warren giving animals weak rights the will help to solve certain problems. Most of the actions taken by different countries are to try to protect the lives and the continued existence of certain endangered species. Some of these animals are unique and should be preserved for various social and economic reasons. Work cited White, James E. Contemporary Moral Problems. Australia: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009. Print. Read More