The Principle Of Utilitarianism: Do Animals Deserve Moral Consideration?

1172 Words 5 Pages
Animals are seen as objects as oppose to living beings that deserve to make an ends of themselves. There are objectors, such as Kant, a deontologist that believes that animals do not deserve moral consideration because they have no intrinsic value such as rationality and autonomy. Since objectors like Kant believe that animals do not think for themselves or think in a logical way they hold another objection, that nonhuman animals are unable to respect others rights or show moral reciprocity within their community. The Principle of Utilitarianism best explains why animals deserve moral consideration equal to that we owe humans, because similarly to humans they too are able to experience pain and pleasure. I will show that my argument is a good one by explaining and examining the utilitarian view as well as the opposing view. I will use Pete singer as support for my argument, and I will also clarify common …show more content…
Animals and humans have similar internal organs and systems, such as, the nervous system which evolved from similar circumstance and later both developed derived characteristics of their own. (Singer 706). Biologically proven, humans are animals connected through a distant ancestor, and other members of the mammalian family display the same traits as us. A common objection states that animals are just animals that have no intrinsic value such as rationality and autonomy. This objection infers that humans are able to think logically and act freely, thus allowing humans to act morally. Implying that animals do not act morally, instead they act instinctually. Humans possess a developed cerebral cortex that separates us from nonhuman animals. This characteristic has to do with the functions of ones thoughts allowing us to function against instinctual

Related Documents