Modern Concern for the Animal Rights - Essay Example

12 May 2016

Animal Rights

It is indeed true that the modern concern for the animal rights was first voiced by the philosophers. In that context the Australian philosopher and animals rights enthusiast Peter Singer deserves a special mention. He had indeed been utterly influential in shaping the current concern and thought about the moral and ethical rights of the animals. In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer asserts that the concern for the welfare and betterment of the animals needs to be placed on the same footing as the concern for the rights of the humans (Franklin 1). While doing so Singer affiliates to the utilitarian ethics of Jeremy Bentham and conveys that when it comes to animal rights, only such actions are justified that maximize happiness and minimize pain. Thereby Singer reinforces the acknowledgement that animals being sentient beings can feel pain and therefore deserve rights aimed at safeguarding them from pain and suffering (Franklin 1). Singer holds that as animals can suffer, thereby, by the virtue of this fact, the humans do have an onus to protect them from suffering and pain, as they have the responsibility to protect the fellow humans from suffering and pain. In the area of animals rights the views of American philosopher Tom Regan also do deserve a special mention. As per Regan certain animals do deserve special rights because they have same type of cognitive abilities that extend such rights to the humans (Franklin 10). The abuse of animals in the current times by millions of farms, factories and scientific research facilities has led to the creation of many salient organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and many vociferous animal concern groups like the Humane Society of the United States. Animal rights are an issue that not only happens to be an important philosophical concern, but that is also of immense relevance for the humanity and human values and ethics.

There are many concerned bodies of opinion and individuals who emphatically voice concern about animal rights and extend the argument that animal do deserve rights that protect them from suffering and pain. On the contrary there are also experts and lay persons who hold that when it comes to human welfare and betterment, animals ought not to have any special rights and it is alright to hurt and kill animals for the sake of human betterment. Thereby, to arrive at a definitive view regarding the issue of animal rights, it is imperative to give a due and concerted consideration to the pros and cons associated with this issue.

The supporters of animal rights do extend the argument that animals by virtue of sentient beings do have an innate and inherent worth (Guither 48). In that sense humans do not happen to be more important as compared to the animals because they are endowed with better cognitive abilities and intelligence. Such supporters of animal rights hold that animals do have an inherent worth no way means that animals are equal to the humans, but this no way contradicts the extension of rights to the animals (Guither 48). This inherent value extended to the animals does place much relevance and importance on the feelings and emotions of pain, suffering, love and joy experienced by the animals. In other words since animals can suffer and be happy, they deserve to be protected and safe guarded. This view regarding the animal rights is pertinent in the sense that it flows out from the human ability to empathize with the pain and suffering of others, even with the pain and suffering of animals. Thereby it lays stress on the human capacity to sympathize with the pain of others while supporting the argument for animal rights.

Many people who challenge the extension of rights to animals do say that if it comes to giving animals the same rights as humans, it will get utterly difficult to draw a line as to where the right of humans end and the rights of animals begin (Kistler 140). Thereby they say that a clear understanding needs to be arrived at that animals are not the same as humans and thereby they cannot and should not be extended any rights as humans. Failure to take into cognizance such distinction between animals and humans is bound to give way to much resentment and confusion (Kistler 28). However, the important flaw in such an argument is that it takes a hegemonic view of the human dominion over nature and the rights humans command over other life forms. In other words it tends to compromise with the rights and benefits that could be and perhaps should be extended to other living beings which though lacking the cognitive potential of humans are liable to suffering and happiness, pain and joy. The fact is that every living being by the virtue of being a life form does deserve some rights, though such rights may differ in their scope and sway from one life from to other life form. Thereby a blanket denial of any rights to animals in the name of human welfare does sound extreme and positively inhuman. If such a line of argument is pursued than it could also be said that human infants and mentally challenged individuals also do not deserve any rights because they lack fully developed cognitive abilities.

There are also opinions that support animal rights by the very fact that a denial of rights to animals and killing and torturing of animals in the name of human progress does reflect negatively on the human society (Waldau 181). As per this opinion, a denial of rights to the animals by any society does make that society an uncivilized society. The very fact that in a society people are willing to harm and kill animals for the benefit of themselves and their fellow human beings do show that, that particular society is more or less primitive in an ethical and moral context (Waldau 168). This argument does sound to be valid in the sense that to a great extent the sophistication inherent in any social order is determined by the fact as to the amount of concern it evinces for the pain and suffering of sentient beings. Thereby, a society that shows concern for the pain suffered by living beings is poised to be more evolved and developed as compared to a society that gives no consideration to the suffering and pain of living beings. Hence, this argument does comes out as being valid in the sense that it does take cognizance of the fact that extending rights to animals does endow the human self concept with much good will and virtue. In other words, caring about the rights of animals makes a society come out as being more humane and virtuous.

One of the most salient arguments against denial of rights to the animals is that it is totally natural to kill and use animals for human betterment and nutrition. The supporters of this argument do say that in the wild the weaker animals are hunted and killed by the predators higher on the food chain for food and nutrition (Dizard 12). In that sense human beings do happen to be at the top of the food chain and thereby must not feel any qualms about killing and hurting animals for nutrition and human progress. In a way such a line of argument does come out as being perfectly in alignment with the laws of nature. However, the primary lacuna inherent in this argument is that it treats human beings at par with wild predators. It fails to take into account that human beings are much civilized as compared to predators in the wild and thereby do have the capacity to think about concepts like ethics and morals, of which the other animals are incapable of. Thereby humans do have the moral capacity to consider and think about the rights of animals.

There are also views pertaining to animal rights that affiliate to a more qualified position rather than adhering to the two extremes. For instance there are groups and people who believe that though it is alright to use animals for laboratory testing and to slaughter them for food and nutrition, yet care should be taken that animals are treated in as humane a way as possible and that no unnecessary pain or suffering is inflicted on them (Rollin 222). The problem with such line of argument is that it allows for the abuse of animals in a somewhat qualified and modified manner. In other words what it tends to convey is that it is alright to make animals suffer, but care needs to be taken that no unnecessary suffering is inflicted on them.

In my personal opinion, animals should have rights and they should be protected by human beings because animals like any other sentient beings do have the capacity to suffer and the capacity to be happy. When it comes to the physical well being of any organism, the kind of, amount and type of rights one deserves has a direct correlation with one’s innate capacity for suffering. Thereby it is but true that most of the animals that are used for scientific testing and research and slaughtered for the purposes of nutrition do have the ability to feel pain, fear and distress. Not only that but these animals also like human beings do want to be happy and lead a life devoid of fear and distress. Thereby as per me animals should have rights not only because they have the ability to feel pain and happiness, but also that we as human beings do know that they have such abilities and capacities. To a great extent being a moral human being involves within its ambit having the capacity to empathize with the pain and suffering of others and to take such measures that readily ameliorate the pain and suffering of others. A human being that continues with an act irrespective of being aware of the fact that it causes immense pain, distress and suffering to a sentient being does stand to be deficient in the domain of human kindness and concern. Thereby, extension of rights to animals is the only viable way for the humanity to reclaim its humanness and morality. Animal rights have as much to do with animal well being as with human morality and ethics.

People refuting my view may put forth the argument that animals cannot think like humans and thereby my assertion that they should have rights is flawed (Smith 48). To some extent I agree with such views in the sense that I know that animals do lack the advanced capacity for cognitive thinking and intelligence like humans, and thereby they are not equal to human beings. However, my stress on animal rights is based not on the superior intelligence of animals, but rather on the assertion that they can feel suffering, fear and pain. Consider a hypothetical scenario, that one day earth is overtaken by an alien species that is superior to human beings. In such a scenario, will it be alright for the aliens to kill or mutilate humans, motivated by the belief that human intelligence is inferior to them. The extension of right to physical well being ensues from an organism’s capacity to feel suffering and pain.

Some opponents of my view may also say that animals should not have any rights because they do not affiliate to any moral order. Animals lack any moral sense and hence they should not have any rights. Again my view that animals should have rights protecting them against suffering and pain is not based on the fact that animals do not believe in any moral order, but rather on the fact that humans with their superior intelligence do abide by some kind of moral order. They very awareness on the part of humans that animals can feel fear, pain and suffering is sufficient enough to extend rights to animals. The very fact that humans believe in morality is a good enough reason to support animal rights.

The fact that any injustice happens to be pervasive and absolute is good enough reason to oppose that injustice. Since ages animals have been killed, mutilated and tortured in the name of human well being and progress. It is time that the humanity takes steps to recognize the right of animals to live without fear and pain. Animals like humans do have the capacity to feel pain and fear. Thereby human morality and the human capacity for empathy do support the extension of rights to animals.