Difference Between Rational And Animals

Superior Essays
Register to read the introduction… So the usual m ove is to find some other difference which is thought to significantly distinguish humans from animals. The most frequently cited and promising candidate: rationality or the sense of onese lf as a continu ing bein g. Hum ans, it is said , can rea son an d think; an imals (it is presumed) canno t. Moreover, this ability to reason becomes reflected in the human's ability to see herself as a continuing creature as a being which has a past and will have a future. Let us grant for a moment that humans are rational and animals aren't; that humans have a sense of themselves as contin ually exis ting bein gs and anima ls don't. Wh y shou ld that make any difference? Or more precisely, why should it make as much a difference as it does? Does th e fact that w e are ra tional legitimate our using non-rational animals just anyway we please? It seem s not. It certain ly doesn 't legitimate abusive treatment of other humans. Some human beings are severely retarded or are in irreversible com as, and thus are no m ore rational th an are the anim als. Yet we think it would be inap propria te to use these humans either to ascertain the effects of ammonia on the skin or to charbroil them for supper. We assume that doing so would violate their rights. So why shouldn't we be equally reluctant to use animals in these ways? (If you find the suggestion of using humans in these ways repulsive, ask you rself: why is it so easy to use an …show more content…
After all, most humans eat animals, and thereby gain nutrition from them; animal experimentation is a significant and vital part of our attempt to discover cures for devastating human disease and to protect humans from the introduction of possibly dangerous commercial products. Doubtless it sometim es ben efits humans to use a nimals in these w ays. But is it genu inely necessary? Not obviously. For example, though most humans do receive some valuab le nutrition by eating animals, there are more than adequate alternatives. One never need eat meat to be extremely healthy. In fact, vegetarian diets may be extrem ely ben eficial; those on vegetarian diets, for instance, have less incidence of certain forms of cancer. Hence, the primary reason people are carnivores rather than vegetarians is that they prefer (or think they prefer) the texture of meat over the alternatives.8 But sure ly having one's tas te buds excited in a certain way is not sufficient reason to inflict substantial pain on animals. To refer back to an earlier case: Jones may derive great pleasure from torturing stray animals, but that doesn't justify his torturing them. Certain ly too, many experiments on an imals are unnecessary. The experiment may be senseless, or continually duplicated. Many e xperiments are doubtle

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    On the article “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin argues that animals should be treated humanely because, according to science, the differences between animals and humans are less than what we think. He believes that animals should be given the rights that protect them from inhumane treatment and human consumption. He is telling us that we have to give them the same rights that a human possesses. In affirmation to Jeremy Rifkin, we should treat animals humanely because they also have a heart that can feel pain and a brain that can think.…

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Animal rights activists have gained considerable attention in the past few decades through education of the public. The exposure of animal cruelty has led more people to support the need for animal rights. The question now is not whether or not animals deserve rights. Instead, the question is what should those rights be and how far should they extend. A key factor that determines what rights an individual deserves is dignity.…

    • 2019 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Essay-2 CHALLENGE FROM MARGINAL CASES Having gone through the ‘Challenge from Marginal Cases: in the Article “Puppies, Pigs and People”, it seems the author Alastair Norcross is of the view that any mutilation or torture to non-human animals is morally impermissible irrespective of the actions of Fred’s behavior and torture of the animals or slaughtering or mutilation of farmed animals. He argues that there is no difference as the animal is mutilated in either case. In one case Fred tortures his puppies directly to obtain cocoamone for his pleasure whereas in other case farmed animals are slaughtered to cater the need of the people. From the above I feel, Fred is a rare consumer of cocoamone and the way he treats or torture puppies himself in an unorganized way and keep animal…

    • 1125 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal Testing Dbq

    • 689 Words
    • 3 Pages

    As stated by Professor Charles R Magel,“Ask the experimenters why they test on animals and the answer is: ‘Because animals are like us’. Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals and the answer is ‘Because the animals are not like us’. Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction” (Source #4). Scientists believe that animals are more similar to us in body anatomy and biology than personality. However, they’re more like us human in a sense of consciousness rather than body.…

    • 689 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As the wise man Edward Freeman once said, “These awful wrongs and sufferings forced upon the innocent, helpless, faithful animal race, form the blackest chapter in the whole world’s history.” In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” Jeremy Rifkin discusses that animals are no different than humans. Being no different than humans means that someone or something is similar to a human being because of either their characteristics or similar body parts. Animals are like humans in the way that they are intelligent, affectionate, and skillful. Animals learn by their behavior as well as humans, however, the only difference is many animals are brutally abused.…

    • 1061 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Humans are animals. We are one species in a complex kingdom that includes many other species with central nervous systems designed in much the same way as our own, like their immunological systems, skeletal systems, etc. That is why humans are in the animal kingdom. We share significant similarities in many ways. Why would it surprise us that other species have highly evolved cognitive (mental), learning, timing, communicative and problem-solving abilities or that they experience fear, pain, suffering, joy, boredom and depression?…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Paper 2 In this paper, I will discuss Mary Anne Warren's "Speaking of Animal Rights" which discusses the strength animals have to rights. Warren’s paper is rebuttal to Tom Regan “The Case for Animal Rights” I agree with Warren that humans' reason responsiveness makes human rights more important. I will explain her argument which focuses on humans' ability to listen to reason as morally relevant to the strength of their rights.…

    • 863 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The first point that Cohen argues is the lack of rights that non-human animals realistically have. Since we are "morally auto-nomous" meaning the ability to set and enforce moral laws for ourselves and animals lack this ability they therefore have no rights (Cohen 566). In response to comparing ourselves to someone who is racist Cohen is appalled due to the fact that racism does not have any moral foundation and argues that because we are morally auto-nomous and live in communities where we reason with others based on our morality, in contrast to animals, we do have rights. This brings in the second point of animal testing for the better of human progression. In his view we cannot view animal experimentations as morally unjust against because if it weren't for the every so often infliction of pain and suffering to them our current modern medicine would not be…

    • 848 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Thus, it can be conferred from Korsgaard’s arguments and claims that no reason is strong enough to justify the killing of animals. Both humans and non-human animals are similar in many ways, and the only difference between them is that humans have rationality, which animals do not. It is ironical how this difference in rationality is used as an excuse by many to justify the killing of animals, when this intelligence in humans should make them more responsible towards animals, saving their lives rather than killing them. As educated and intelligent humans, killing animals is never morally permissible, since they have intrinsic value and deserve to live their lives to the…

    • 1748 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In comparison of “All Animals Are Equal and Moral Standing,” the “Value of Lives, and Speciesism” the key differences are based on the values outlined by the writers. In Value of Lives and Speciesism, Frey discusses the importance of animals feel pain and suffer just as humans do, but also admits that there are reasons such as necessary medical research for harming animals. On the other hand, Singer’s All Animals Are Equal focuses on the rights of hemostats in comparison to those who can make intelligent decisions. The question is should non-human animals have rights and how far do those rights reach? Both agree that animals should have rights, but their major differences including, pleasure and pain, hierarchy, consumption, and richness of life.…

    • 1155 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One of the strongest arguments for our uses of non-human animals is the argument of need. Most people believe that we are justified in doing what it takes to in other to survive, in fact, most people even think it is okay to kill another human in the name of self defense. This argument does not justify using animals for non necessary things, such as, cosmetic testing, but eating is a necessity, so there is nothing wrong with eating animals. The problem is that we know humans can be perfectly healthy without eating animals. So yes you need to eat, but do not need to eat animals.…

    • 263 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The use of animals in research is widely accepted, particularly within the scientific community. However, with the rise of new technologies and growing concern over animal welfare, the ethics of animal experimentation and the extent to which it is practiced has increasingly come into question. Although animal experimentation is regulated to prevent excessive suffering, opponents argue that these measures are insufficient. Proponents of animal research argue that knowledge gained from it and the various applications for it justify the unethical manner by which that knowledge is obtained. This argument neglects critical moral considerations rooted in deontology and utilitarianism which condemn the unethical use of animals for the advancement…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Animal Experimentation Animal experimentation has been around for many centuries. Humans perform these experiments on all species of animals to find different effect of a product it could have on a human. Three advantages in particular advantages are, it helps scientists gain a better understanding for cures of different diseases, this practice makes a vital advance in medicine, and for the expense of treatments and cures animals should not have rights when it comes to research. Although there are many advantages to animal experimentation, there are also disadvantages which include, there is no benefit for the humans, it is cruel, and is dangerous for humans to be treated only after a trial on animals. The first advantage to animal experimentation is using animals like rats can help the scientist gain better knowledge for different…

    • 1333 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    The Contrast Between Animality and Humanity in The Island of Doctor Moreau and Life of Pi One of the major cultural anxieties that prevails in society is the relationship between humans and animals and the distinction between humanity and animality. Humans are often depicted as being a higher form of animal, most commonly induced by religious practices. However, upon isolation or fear of death, the human thought process tends to revert to what is associated to animal-like behaviour. Humans tend to separate themselves from animal life forms as animals are seen as vicious, brutish and capable of committing acts that humans refrain from. Because of this cultural anxiety, much of literature embodies the ideology of animality and humanity and the…

    • 1597 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However these statements are proven untrue. In fact animals, particularly primates, have extraordinary mental capabilities. For example, apes have most, if not all, emotions…

    • 776 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays