Madison Bowdish
Dr. Brian Onishi
PHIL 229
15 Dec 2016
Animal Rights in Factory Farms The idea that industrial farming is bad for the environment is well known, but what people do not think about is horrible practice of factory farms within industrial farming. Factory farms are inhumane and not only because the animal is being slaughtered, but because of the way the animals are treated before the are killed. A person would think that if they were to be innocently killed that they would want to be treated with respect and dignity before they die. In this paper, I will argue that animals have rights through a utilitarian view and that they should not be treated in an inhumane way. The framework I plan to discuss is Peter Singer 's utilitarian view on animal rights. A general idea of what utilitarianism is can be described as the need for the many outweigh the needs of a few, or “majority rule” when it comes to happiness. Singer’s criteria for how a being gets rights is based on the ability to feel pleasure or pain. With this criteria it allows people who are mentally handicapped, the senile, and babies to have rights (Hozien). Most would agree that it would be cruel to not give these people rights, so Singer argues that since animals can feel pain and pleasure they also have rights. Although he believes that they should be treated equal he does admit that there is a range or difference of pain. He equates this to racism or in this case speciesism. For instance he states that
A quick comparison to Vicki Hearne’s “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights?” to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status”, might indicate Hearne’s argument is stronger due to her strategic and effective use of emotional appeals (i.e. pathos). These appeals allow Hearne to connect quickly and easily with her audience. Hearne is also quite clever in terms of stressing her occupation as an animal trainer. However, after a swift comparison of the two articles, it is evident that Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status” offers readers a stronger and more valid argument. Both Singer and Hearne are arguing their position on animal rights and the extent of human involvement. Since Hearne’s article is primarily based on her attempt to persuade her
On the topic of animal rights, Vicki Hearne and Peter Singer represent opposite ends of a belief spectrum. Singer describes, in numerous articles, that he believes animal rights should focus on if the animal is suffering, and the best option to prevent it is to limit interaction between animals and humans. Specifically, in “Speciesism and Moral Status” Singer compares the intelligence and ability of non-human animals to those with severe cognitive disabilities to establish an outrageous solution to animal belittlement. He uses logos (the appeal to reason) and ethos (the appeal to ethics), to question the current rights in place to appeal to other scholars. Nevertheless, his approach can cause an emotional disconnect to the readers; this apparent in contrast to Hearne’s pathos (the
Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13-26). Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm
I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.
Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation brings forth topics of animal cruelty and equality. Singer argues that humans have a natural tendency towards speciesism; speciesism “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s species against those of members of other species” (Singer, 6). Speciesism is used by Singer to determine a catalyst for the never-ending cycle that is animal cruelty and abuse on a broader stage. Singer essentially argues that just like racism where one has prejudice or an attitude of bias in favor of one’s race as opposed to others and sexism where sexes replace races, species replaces sexes and races. Equality in Singer’s perspective is that every individual should have the opportunity of equal
Peter Singer is deeply rooted against speciesism, in which humans favor themselves as having greater moral rights than animals. Racism and sexism are equally as wrong of acts as speciesism. Singer acknowledges the difference between animals and humans mentally and physically, although he argues that animals’ wellbeing’s to be considered. He states that “allowing animals to suffer from neglect or for the sake of large profits may also be unnecessary and cruel” (288). Animals are being treated inhumanely with their living conditions and are abused.
In his essay, Singer brings up key ideas that give insight to the readers as to why they should follow utilitarianism and vegetarianism. He argues that pain and pleasure are the basis of all moral values and because animals experience pain and pleasure, this makes them morally significant as well. Singer also states that utilitarianism gives good reasons to avoid certain kinds of sourcing meats. Therefore, factory farming should be avoided and that free-range organic methods of raising animals should be used instead because it is morally neutral or good. As well, even if livestock is raised in humane ways, it is morally wrong to kill and eat the animal because it will feel pain. Singer also notes that many things must be taken into account: the potential loss of happiness of vegetarians, the loss of livelihood of producers of factory-farmed products, environmental consequences, global and individual health concerns as
Animal rights are practically non-existent in many different ways today. Factory farming is probably the worst thing they can do to the poor helpless animals. Factory farming effects chickens, cows, pigs, and many other animals that are used for food, milk and eggs. One of the biggest organizations against factory farming is called Compassion Over Killing (COK). They go to great lengths to protest and inform people about animal cruelty.
Michael Pollan argues the traditional approaches to animal rights and welfare, as well as the environment that the animals live in, are unacceptable. He addresses the issues and gives his own feedback and opinions about the topic and what he thinks the overall outcome should be. A large portion of the article is spent with ideas running through Pollan's mind and he is trying to gather enough information to realize if the process is correct or not. First, Pollan explains what's wrong with industrial farming. Pollan states that beef cattle are used to standing ankle deep in their own waste, as well as eating corn which they can't digest. Chickens get their beaks snipped off and are placed in cages that are entirely too small. Pigs are taken away from their
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
A common, but very accurate, phrase in the english language is, “Don’t shoot the messenger,” and that is exactly what politicians in Iowa are doing. These politicians, “bowed to corporate pressure,” (Carlson) when they passed the AgGag bill. This law prohibited consumers from knowing what exactly is going on inside the factory farms from which they receive their meat and dairy products from. Investigative journalist and animal rights activates are now restricted from going undercover and taking entry level jobs at factory farms trying to expose the animal cruelty and health hazards that take place in these factory farms.
The fact that like humans, animals feel pain should be enough to consider animals’ interests and we should have responsibilities towards them. These responsibilities, however, should be limited to animal welfare. Animals cannot be given human rights because they do not posses the same traits human beings do, and conversely, human beings do not have the abilities or traits that animals have. If we follow Singer’s position and extend this non-speciesist principle of equality to animals, then huge aspects of our traditional ways of life would be dramatically changed, just as moving toward less racist and sexist social structures bring about radical
Peter Singer addresses the ordeal of animal rights better than I have ever seen anyone address it. His analysis laid out in A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation is remarkably stated. He pushes the viewer to see animals as equals to us.
Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.
The rights of U.S. citizen and the Animals on Animal Farm are fairly the same but different. U.S. citizens have a choice in who runs there county, while the animal farm rely's on someone to step up and take the lead such as Snowball and Napoleon. Normally animals in the U.S. don't talk or rebel against humans. But humans are considered an enemies in the Animal farm because they don't get treated right by there owner Mr. Jones.