Animal Ethics
Today, we will look at several modern western historical philosophical figures that have played a significant role in the movements of animal rights and welfare, such as Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill; we will discuss their work impact in changing our ethical attitudes and laws regarding animals. We also will discuss animal ethics in the 21st century.
Descartes is one of the earliest advocates of animal rights, who start to pay attention to the difference between humans and animals. In his Meditations, he denies animals even the ability to feel pain, he argues animals can't feel pain, think, or suffer; animals have no mind; he rejects the scholastic concept of the 'rational animal'. Animals have no consciousness, like a machine. (Descartes, 77) However, most of the scientists in the 20th century, maintained their idea, believing animals are like unfeeling robots, which cause a lot of people concern for animal suffering and their rights, Animal rights movement become more active and relevant, split around the world. Fortunately, today most people believe animals are capable of feeling pain and distress, and they should be granted rights, many modern philosophers start practicing animal ethics such as Peter Singer, and Tom Regan, who lead the animal liberation movement. [1: Rational Animal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_animal]
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Kant talks about his view in his deontological theory, that animals do not possess rationality. And he doesn't think humans owed any ethical duties to animals. He believes that since animals are not self-conscious, they lack reason or autonomy. ( Kant,1978,127 ) Therefore, our duties towards animals are indirect duties towards humanity, either legal or ethical. He tells us it's all right to raise animals for meat and to use them for labor. ( Kant,1978,127 ) From here, we can see that Kant's theory is limited, which denies animals moral status. [2: Animals and Ethics: https://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/]
Compared to Descartes, Mill is more friendly to animal rights and famed for utilitarianism. According to utilitarianism, the well-being of every individual counts, including nonhuman animals as well as humans. Utilitarianism's goal is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals. Mill argued for the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. There are many great advantages of animal experimentation; but as we know, over the years animals have been tortured. If animal experimentation or biomedical research is to satisfy the maximum number of happiness (or interests), then such experiments should be acceptable regarding Mill's utilitarianism theory. Utilitarianism thus does not argue for the abolition of animal exploitation.
In recent times, Peter Singer and Tom Regan are inspiring the animal liberation movement with the view that we should extend moral standing to other species of animals
For utilitarianism, the problem is not that we use animals; rather, the problem is how we use them. Regarding the website from Wikipedia, 'Animal ethics is a term used in academia to name the branch of ethics that examines human-animal relationships, the moral consideration of animals and how nonhuman animals ought to be treated.' The big question we should question ourselves is what borderline is for non-humans to exist in an acceptable moral system. On one hand, we are happy to see the animal rights movement is making big progress for the animal rights, currently, there are 92 out of 180 law schools in the U.S have animal law courses; another hand, we do need to focus on relationships and response-ability with animals to rethink animal ethics. We need to find the mean point for both sides' views to gain the greatest benefit for both human and non-human animals. [3: Animal Ethics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_ethics] [4: Animal Right Movements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_movement]
Environment Ethics
Since we talk about animal ethics, we have to introduce the environment ethically. Environmental ethics concerns itself with the relationship to the natural environment. Environmental challenges such as environmental degradation, pollution, and climate change. The granting of moral standing to future generations has been considered necessary. The environmental philosophers look at environmental ethics collectively with the big picture of how our actions impact on the environment, we should not just evaluate how these affect humans in the present or future, but also how they affect the interests and rights of animals. (Regan, 1983/2004, ch.9) For example, an area of forest is proven to be of benefit to humans both in the short and long term. We feel so sorry for the Amazon rainforest fire this summer. A number of philosophers have recognized that environmental movement, whatever its practical political effectiveness, faces considerable theoretical difficulties in justification. (Sagoff, 1984, 205-67; Norton, 1982, 17-36) For environmentalists, 'holistic' entities matter, such as species and ecosystems; in some cases, the overabundance of individuals of a particular species of animal can cause a serious threat to the normal function of an ecosystem. For example, the problems of an increasing number of rabbits or kangaroos have caused to ecosystems in Australia. Thus, for many environmentalists, we should kill these damaging animals; unfortunately, this is violated the animal ethic for the rights of individual animals. [5: Environmental philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_philosophy]
Commonly, environmental ethics and animal protection ethics conflict where there is a perceived need to protect ecosystems from individual animals or even species. (Garner, 2005, 143) Both animal liberationists and environmentalists broaden our ethical horizons – to make us realize that it is not just human welfare that counts. (Elliot, 1995, 229) After all, the welfare and interests of individual entities are often bound up with the healthy function of the whole ecosystem. We should not over-emphasize the opposition between animal ethics and environmental ethics. We have obligations in respect of the environment and animal rights and both ethics, in general, require people to play fair in the natural system.
Cites
- Kant, Immanuel, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, trans. Victor Dowdell (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1978), 9; VA 7: 127.
- Rational animal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_animal
- Regan, Tom, The Case for Animal Rights, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2nd ed., 1983/2004).
- Mark Sagoff, ‘On Preserving the Natural Environment’, Yale Law Review, 84(1974): 2005-67; Bryan Norton, ‘Environmental Ethics and Nonhuman Rights’, Environmental Ethics, 4(1982): 17-36.
- R. Garner, Animal Ethics (2005), 143.
- Elliot, Robert, ‘Environmental Ethics’, Oxford University Press 1995, 229.
Stuck on your essay?
