A common opinion when discussing animal rights is “that we shouldn’t treat animals as brutally as we do now. We should kill them humanely, instead.” This opinion is the middle ground between “speciesism” (Cohen, speciesism, 485) and giving animals “inviolable rights” (Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis, 19). The questions then arise on whether this middle ground thought can provide enough meat for 7 billion people and reduce animal suffering? do the lives of other beings matter and what rights are these beings entitled to?
Speciesism is the belief that one species, such as human beings, are greater than all other species and therefor entitled to rule over those species. Speciesism guarantees rights solely to human beings and only human beings. …show more content…
Rights are given to beings that have consciousness and sentience. Consciousness/sentience is classified by a being’s capability to “experience a life of its own, struggle with life, and flourish” (Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis, 22). This definition leads animals to have their own set of inviolable rights. Consciousness is often misconstrued as not being present in animals because their consciousness is not human consciousness. As most people seek “human consciousness” when giving rights to living beings instead of more abstract consciousness (Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis, 30). However, animals are often considered to be sacrificed for the “greater good” and have their inviolable rights taken away for the benefit of man (Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis, 20). The greater good is a utilitarian thought process in which something is sacrificed in order to bring greater happiness to the world; that sacrifice being an animal’s life is for consumption. Thereby, consuming animals is a violation of their rights while also causing animal suffering. The critique of this argument is: what is consciousness outside of a human consciousness? Since it is out of our realm of thought, does that mean other things have consciousness too? If an animal has consciousness, then insects, inanimate objects, and possibly forces have consciousness. The consciousness described is too vague to place a line between what beings deserve nonviable rights and which beings do not. If there is no clear line of consciousness outside of a human’s, then the only consciousness we can give inviolable rights to is to a human. Another problem with this argument is the definition of inviolable rights. There is no clear definition of inviolable rights. Since there is not a clear definition of inviolable rights then there is not a clear set of rights to be given to
Speciesism is the belief that one species, such as human beings, are greater than all other species and therefor entitled to rule over those species. Speciesism guarantees rights solely to human beings and only human beings. …show more content…
Rights are given to beings that have consciousness and sentience. Consciousness/sentience is classified by a being’s capability to “experience a life of its own, struggle with life, and flourish” (Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis, 22). This definition leads animals to have their own set of inviolable rights. Consciousness is often misconstrued as not being present in animals because their consciousness is not human consciousness. As most people seek “human consciousness” when giving rights to living beings instead of more abstract consciousness (Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis, 30). However, animals are often considered to be sacrificed for the “greater good” and have their inviolable rights taken away for the benefit of man (Donaldson and Kymlicka, Zoopolis, 20). The greater good is a utilitarian thought process in which something is sacrificed in order to bring greater happiness to the world; that sacrifice being an animal’s life is for consumption. Thereby, consuming animals is a violation of their rights while also causing animal suffering. The critique of this argument is: what is consciousness outside of a human consciousness? Since it is out of our realm of thought, does that mean other things have consciousness too? If an animal has consciousness, then insects, inanimate objects, and possibly forces have consciousness. The consciousness described is too vague to place a line between what beings deserve nonviable rights and which beings do not. If there is no clear line of consciousness outside of a human’s, then the only consciousness we can give inviolable rights to is to a human. Another problem with this argument is the definition of inviolable rights. There is no clear definition of inviolable rights. Since there is not a clear definition of inviolable rights then there is not a clear set of rights to be given to