Moral Treatment of Animals and Humans - Research Paper Example

Moral Treatment of Animals and Humans: A Discussion of the Focus of Morality. The treatment of creatures that are not human is the subject of an article by Bonnie Steinbock where she focuses her ideas on the link between treatment of an anmial and their equality to the human race. In focusing her argument on equality, she attempts to show that creatures are not human and therefore do not have the right to the same kind of humane treatment that humans are given. Her focus on the argument and the counterarguments are on the recipient of treatment rather than the morality of the giver of treatment. The rational is faulty because morality is not assigned by the recipient of moral behavior but the actor. In looking at the idea of the morality of how animals can be treated in contrast to human rights, Steinbock misses the point that morality is about the actor, not about the recipient of the treatment.. The basic argument that Steinbock has made about the difference between speciecism in comparison to sexism or racism is that different species of life are in fact not human life and are therefore not subject to the morals that we place on human rights. Being human subjects an entity to the human rights that have been determined to be moral. Being a lion, as an example, does not entitle that creature to have human rights imposed upon its treatment. How a lion is treated, by the capacity to take its freedom, kill it for food, or use it for experimentation is not relevant to human concepts of morality because it does not have the capacity to be human and has not earned those rights. Steinbock states that because it cannot have the capacity to reciprocate those rights, it does not have the right to the morals that frame human rights. Intelligence is a marker for how a creature is treated. Steinbock states that “Intelligence is thought to be a morally relevant capacity because of its relation to the capacity for moral responsibility”. In comparing the ideas of racism or sexism to speciecism, the lack of the capacity to be taught what it means to be afforded human rights appears to be a relevant argument. Because a woman or an African American can be taught and can learn and have equal responses to situations and responsibilities, their rights should be equal to that of white men. Animals, however, do not have the capacity to respond to the world as an equal to humans, therefore they are not eligeable to human morality or the rights that comes from it. The discussion moves then to one of equality. Equality is not based on the idea that all people are equal, because equality in intelligence, physical appearance, and a host of characteristics is not relevant. Equality means that people have equal access to opportunity, not that equal opportunities belong to all people. This argument, however, is not relevant to the morality of respecting the rights of animals. The morality of humane treatment or imposing the parameters of human rights as a moral imperative where animals are concerned should be based upon the idea that as an enlightened human being, animals should be treated with dignity. That animals do not deserve humane treatment because they cannot reciprocate is not a rational idea. Neither is the argument that because they cannot be taught relevant. It is not about the creature that is being treated in a certain way as much as the morality involved in using power over other creatures to deny their needs. This argument seems to be falsely constructed and is based on the idea of the ownership of rights rather than the consideration of needs. Steinbock approaches the theories of Singer where these concepts of needs are concerned and ties this to the subject of equality. Equality where opportunity is concerned, however, is not the same as addressing needs. The argument is not relevant to equality, but is appropriate to allowing for and providing need fulfillment for creatures that do not have the capacity to reciprocate. Doing so is the right and moral obligation of human beings because the human being is obliged to be moral and the recipient of that morality has no obligation to be able to reciprocate. Steinbock discusses the theory of Williams who suggests that pain and affection are the measure against which humane treatment should be discussed. She also discusses that Wasserman also has this theory on the subject. Equality is based on the freedom from suffering. This comes back to Singer’s beliefs on the subject, that equality comes from the shared capacity to suffer pain. In addition, the topic of rights is approached in that animals do not have rights because they cannot use rights. Hart and Benn put into play the question of rights as they pertain to an infant who does not have rights. This is also false as an infant does have rights; they are given as proxy to their parents. The issue of cruelty and pain comes down to the idea of hitting someone. If hitting someone causes them pain, then one is not likely to hit them. The moral question, however, is not whether or not to hit someone because it might cause them pain, but whether or not as a moral person one should hit someone. This shows that again the focus is on the recipient rather than the behavior of the actor. Singer writes that “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration”. Steinbock writes that “if we can free human beings from crippling diseases, pain and death through experimentation which involves making animals suffer…then I think that such experimentation is justified because human lives are more valuable than animal lives”. It is the paradox between what would be done to what must be done to achieve certain results. The results, according to this thinking, justify the means. They would not justify the means, however, from the animal’s perspective. Steinbock’s argument is not satisfactory. Her response to objections to her position is also not satisfactory because it is trying to focus on equality as a measure to determine if it is just to act against humane treatment. The fault of the argument lies in its focus as morality is always assigned in relationship to the actor and the power that the actor chooses to assert over another creature, be they human or animal. If a person chooses to not be the kind of person who hits another human being, does it mean that they are moral if they choose to hit a dog? It is the choice that is made by the actor that defines whether or not an action is moral, not the recipient. Read More