The Social Contract Theory and Animals - Essay Example

The Social Contract Theory and Animals Affiliation The Social Contract Theory and Animals The social contract theory contends that morality entails a number of rules governing the social relationships of people and any reasonable person will be willing to abide by these rules given that the rest will do the same (Smith, 2008). Principally, the subjects to this social contract are human beings and not animals due to the presence of rationality in the human beings and its absence in animals. This paper shall, therefore, argues that according to a social contract theorist, it is not morally wrong to kill animals for food. In order to take part in a contract, one ought to have a clear understanding of the contents of the contract, reach agreement as regards to it and finally adhere to its rules (Smith, 2008). This is something that only rational agents, that is human beings, can do. Animals lack the ability to be rational and as such, they cannot be parties to a social contract (Smith, 2008). Morality cannot possibly apply to animals as they lack a moral standing. Without a moral standing on the part of the animals, it will be morally right to kill them for food since no moral obligations flow from the human beings to the animals. One will not be taken to have broken any moral duty or obligation by simply killing the animals for food. In a social contract, human beings are in a position to give various responses to moral claims (Smith, 2008). Animals, on the other hand, have no moral rights whatsoever and they lack the ability to give any form of responses to moral claims (Smith, 2008). The animals also have no moral rights due to the absence on their part to comprehend their rules of responsibility in a contract that are meant to govern them as well as other members party to the said contract. In the application of these rules, the holders of the moral rights ought to pursue not only their self-interests but also justifiable matters (Smith, 2008). Hence, the killing of the animals to obtain food would be both a pursuance of the self-interests of the human beings as well as a matter that can be properly justified. Such kind of moral capabilities can only be held by human beings. This is because they live in a society that is governed by moral principles and rules. They also possess the moral rights. Animals potentially lack these moral capacities (Smith, 2008). It is not feasible for the animals to be members of a moral society and hence, they cannot have any moral rights. Animals live in a state of nature as opposed to a society (Smith, 2008). In killing animals for food, therefore, their moral rights are not infringed since they have none in the first place. Their rights would only have been violated if they did actually have. The animals do not have any form of moral choices to make and therefore, it is not morally wrong to kill them for the purposes of obtaining food. Human beings have certain attributes that enable them to make moral claims against other individuals. These attributes arise from the intellect of human beings and the same lacks in animals (Smith, 2008). The intellectual ability of the human beings encompasses the capacity to have knowledge of various ethical values that give appropriate guidance to one’s actions. Due to the inability of animals to make moral claims, it cannot possibly be wrong to slaughter them for food. The animals have no intellectual capacity that can give them an opportunity to make a moral claim in the event that they are killed for food. To be entitled to a moral consideration under the social contract theory, one has to be under the protection of the government (Smith, 2008). However, animals are considered to be in anarchy, that is a state of nature, and the government does not accord them the necessary protection as a result. In this case, therefore, one would be right not to give any moral consideration to the animals and to subsequently kill them for food. Besides, they are not part of the social contract and the rules of the social contract cannot apply to them in as far as killing is concerned. Killing and eating them is morally right. This is attributed to the fact that the scope of the moral responsibilities available under the social contract is extremely low (Smith, 2008). Animals are excluded from this particular scope of moral responsibility and it is entirely up to an individual to decide whether to kill and eat them or not. Human beings have no known form of direct duty to the animals. Only an individual who has a moral duty cannot be able to have a moral obligation. From the above understanding, animals have no moral duty and hence, no moral obligation. Both human beings and animals would have interest but the interests of human beings in the social contract theory override those of the animals. As such, if the human beings have an interest to kill and eat animals, that interest would be morally justified and it would override the interests that animals have to stay alive. No morals would have been broken in this case. From the foregoing analysis, it is evident that only rational beings can be in a position to enter into a social contract. Those beings that are not rational, that is the animals, lack this standing. The rational beings have moral duties and responsibilities that they are required to adhere to. On the contract, animals lack these moral duties and responsibilities. It would, therefore, be proper to argued that animals have no moral standing whatsoever and they cannot take part in a social contract. The form of protection given to human beings under the social contract by the government cannot possibly be given to the animals as well. The animals are still in a state of nature and they have no moral values guiding their day to day activities. This is unlike the human beings who are no longer in anarchy. In conclusion, therefore, it would be right to argue that it is not morally wrong to kill animals for purposes of food since the animals lack any form of moral standing. Reference Smith, K. (2008). Animals and the Social Contract. Environmental Ethics, 30(2), 195-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20083026         Read More