The Moral Status Of Non-Human Animals

Is there something distinctive about humans that justifies Homo-sapiens having a moral status while other non-humans do not? This particular question has become increasingly important to philosophers and researchers alike who are interested in the treatment of non-human animals. For many, this question if answered will explain the nature of human beings and the moral obligations that we consider proper. There are those who argue that humans do have a higher moral status than other non-humans. They except the answer that humans possess distinguishing traits that are different and considered higher functioning than non-humans and therefore animals are not to be considered under the same moral obligations. The conflict in that answer is the fact …show more content…
Many claim that to be morally considered an individual must also recognize the wrong done to him. This statement is far from the truth because its motive is overlooking the barrier of communication and conceptualizing wrong. Take for example children, who are morally considered, many came from abusive situations and did not recognize the morally wrong behavior someone was forcing on them and it usually was a second entity who decided to recognize it as such. Children cannot conceptualize wrong doings unless it has been communicated to them as wrong (communication is a factor) but even when they don’t recognize the wrong done to them we still morally consider them refuting the statement that to be safeguarded by morals you have to recognize those morals exist. Animals may not recognize the morals that exist just as how children, cognitively impaired humans, and or fetuses cannot show recognition of those same morals but society would never look upon any of those persons as not having equal moral status so why are animals excluded from that …show more content…
In general, the term reflects the prejudice of putting one’s species above all other species and disregards the exploitation or harm done to other species. This type of prejudice is used as a defense by those who claim humans are better than all other species and justifies as to why animals should be excluded from a moral status. Discrimination based on species is equal to discrimination based on race because the bases of these characteristics is justified by superiority rather than factual reasoning. Speciesism actions are prejudicial for the exact reason of preferring the interests of the group one belongs to over the interests of those who don’t belong within that group. From a moral point of view species membership is a morally irrelevant characteristic, it cannot serve as basis for a view that holds our species in a higher moral status that is not owed to other