Animal Rights Philosophy

Peter Singer has written many works in support of animal rights. In one of his greatest works Animal Liberation, Singer goes into great depths on how similar in biology animals are to human beings. Another strong point was not only the biological resemblance, but also the behavioral tendencies and traits humans and nonhuman species share. There are two major areas of focus that Singer puts emphasis on that need to be recognized for the purposes of my argument. One focus is this utilitarian approach that only the human species carry: the belief of ethical and morally good behavior should be extended to the consideration of nonhuman species. The second focus that is the basis for my argument is Singer’s argument against a huge human social construct labeled speciesism.

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

When a cause is brought up and given light, it has a way of splitting people in how they react to it. And such has been true when it comes to granting new rights, because it’s brobdingnagian in our society that is always hungry for freedoms. We are split down the middle on whether, or not to consider animals, just like us, and thus deserve the rights we hold in our society today. On the other end, are people who don’t believe such rights should be given to animals. While the pro-arguments hold value, there is much more to see on the other end. As to why animals shouldn’t have a “Bill of Rights” like we as humans do. It’s shown in various different ways, even the most popular arguments held by the opposing side. Such as cows hurting the environment, zoo’s being inhumane, and pets. There are other factors as well to take into consideration such as food, psychology medicine, and even culture.

In “Speciesism and Moral Status”, Peter Singers argument is that when it comes to the value of life, we should not discriminate in regards to species, and cognitive ability should play some role in moral status. In comparison to humans with “profound mental disabilities” (Singer 569), the use of the gorilla Koko’s higher IQ score, not needing constant supervision, or border collies being able to provide useful work to society, serves as a strong logos appeal regarding the relationship between cognitive ability and moral status. Singer is effectively able to support his claims by continuously referencing respected philosophers and individuals such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and even Pope John Paul II. Validity and integrity are very much solidified in Singers article with the use of counter arguments as well as alternate views to his own arguments. The structure and information Singer provides is clear and organized, and does not leave his audience confused due to the strong use of factual, relevant support of his argument.

In this passage the central conclusion is that the value of life, whether that be humans or animals is contributed to the quality of life, the quality is related to its richness being related to the life’s capacity of enrichment. (LaFollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1997. Print.) Frey gives support to this conclusion by recognizing that not all individuals from a moral group are individuals that have lives with equal value or significance within both humans and animals. (LaFollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1997. Print.) In support this statement, Frey claims there are different moral standings of most human lives. Some examples were an infant with disadvantages, a disabled person and elderly person with a severe case of Alzheimer’s disease. Frey then supports these claims by saying that if we agree with these claims it is clear that we are not using species membership to determine the value and moral standing of an individual but instead as the quality of an individual’s life. An additional support of the central conclusion is that this view allows for animals to have more value than a human

Mark Rowlands in his article Contractarianism and Animal Rights focuses on John Rawl’s social contract argument. Rowlands writes that Rawls liberal egalitarian version of contractarianism is more than capable of assigning a direct moral status to non-human animals. This essay will set out Rowlands views with reference to philosophers and academics writing about the rights of non-human animals.

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

A clear comparison of the prejudice between speciesism and racism is presented through contemporary American philosopher Carl Cohen. Cohen is one academic who calls himself a proud speciesist. Cohen has a somewhat Darwinian approach to speciesism, arguing that every species on the planet is struggling and fighting to claw their way to the top, that this is how it should be and this is how it is. Each species should only be concerned about looking after itself, and due to humans currently being at the top, this shows we are the strongest of the species and can do whatever we please with those below us. This argument from Cohen is the exact one which slave owners used to rationalise and justify the domination over indigenous people and Africans. Cohens given defence of speciesism directly links and compares with the prejudice of racism from the slave trade, a prejudice all are disgusted with, and so presents how the prejudice of speciesism is definitely comparable to racism.

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

Next, I will analyze Carl Cohen’s premises. Cohen’s arguments about disagreeing animal’s right that contains of two premises to conclude that animals cannot have rights, the premises have some contradictions. The first premise which is any beings can have rights if they have free moral judgement, is logically strong. It is strong due to the fact that all beings have to respect each other’s rights if they understand what the judgement is. Like golden rule, beings treated each beings the same when the other beings understand. But, if there is something that make the beings to speak out, they can do so because other beings are treating it the same way. Beings can have rights because they understand that they have to fight for one if one does not

In his article “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer discusses the widely-held belief that, generally speaking, there is no more inequality in the world, because all groups of formerly oppressed humans are now liberated. However, it often goes without notice that there are groups of nonhuman animals that continue to face unequal treatment, such as those that are consumed or used as scientific test subjects. Singer’s article criticizes the belief that because humans are generally more intelligent than nonhuman animals, then all humans are superior to all nonhuman animals. Singer argues that intelligence is an arbitrary trait to base the separation of humans and nonhumans, and declares that the only trait that one can logically base moral value is the capacity to have interests, which is determined by a creature’s ability to suffer. Singer explains that in order to stay consistent with the basic principle of equality, anything that has the capacity to suffer ought to have its needs and interests recognized, just as humans’ needs and interests are currently recognized through what he calls “equal consideration.” In this paper, I will explain Singer’s notion of equal consideration as the only relevant sense of equality and why it applies to the rights of both human and nonhuman species that are

Animal rights is the idea that all animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives. It’s important to have animal rights because it prevents animals from living horrible, tortured lives for human benefit and entertainment. They have feelings and emotions too, they should be treated as humanely as possible at all times, they are not on this earth for human benefit and usage.

In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.

In “Animal “Rights” versus Human” Edwin Locke argues that only humans have rights, and that animal rights are anti-humanitarian. Locke claims that only creatures think and make choices have rights. He confirms the idea of animals don’t think and make choices. Also, he argues that activists place more value on animals than humans. In my opinion, Edwin Locke’s arguments are weak because the article doesn’t have sources and some terms regarding to moral judgments have to be clearly explained and justified.