The Principle Of Utilitarianism: Do Animals Deserve Moral...

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

Korsgaard's Theory Of Human Morality

She believed the things that are good or bad for animals should be treated as good or bad objectively, normatively and individually. Korsgaard argues that self-consciousness, or autonomy cannot serve to distinguish humans from nonhuman animals, as humans with disabilities and mental problems would then be deprived of their moral worth and value. If we use these characteristics to create a gap between humans and other animals, we place these special human beings on the other side of the gap and if this gap is considered to create a difference in moral status, then these humans would be given the moral status of animals rather than humans. Therefore, no matter what the situation is, we always…

Words: 1748 - Pages: 7

Moral Status Of Animals Analysis

The article “The Moral Status of Animals” examines how humans perceive themselves as having moral status, while at the same time they also justify that non-humans obtain no moral status. Lori Gruen who is the author of this article states that these people often suggest that animals cannot be harmed in a moral sense like humans. But membership to a specific species does not justify the moral claim made by those who belong to the Homo sapiens species. Species membership does not explain why animals are considered to have no moral status. There are distinguishable characteristics that come along with Homo sapiens, but they do not condone morality.…

Words: 2501 - Pages: 11

Carl Cohen's Article: Why Animals Have No Rights

Inherent value is described primarily in negative terms, and there is no specific definition that would appropriately define whether or not a being has inherent value. Additionally, the line for what is classified as having inherent value and what does not is not clearly drawn. In fact, it is impractical to create the line anywhere, as doing so would allow two similar species on either side of the line to be respected in entirely different ways since inherent value is an absolute property. In an attempt to remedy this, Warren promotes a weak animal rights theory which ascribes simple principles that protect animals from universal wronging. Although this is better than Regan’s absolute approach, human-generated rights cannot be applied to animals.…

Words: 1642 - Pages: 7

Animalism In Eric Olson's View That We Are Animals

The view that we are human animals, "animalism", is a very unpopular view. However, those who deny it face an awkward choice. They must either deny that there are any human animals, deny that human animals can think, or deny that we are the thinking things located where we are. It is a truism that you and I are human beings and that a human being is a kind of animal: roughly a member of the primate species Homo sapiens. It would naturally seem to follow that we are animals.…

Words: 1800 - Pages: 8

Thoughts On Thought In Animal Minds By Hobbes And Searle

PHI 1000 Fall 2016 Prof. Drain Essay #2 Thoughts on Thought After examining the several angles to the issue of animal cognition, it is my conclusion that non-human animals are in fact capable of thought. Although humans certainly display a superior cognitive ability, I believe the cognition of animals is not of an entirely different type, and that whatever difference remains is simply one of degree. While Davidson and Descartes tend to argue that language is a necessary component for rational creatures, Hobbes and Searle give non-human creatures more “cognitive credit,” citing their ability perceive, and to have and correct beliefs, as proof of being conscious, thinking, beings. Pointing to the immense biological similarities between humans…

Words: 1802 - Pages: 8

Steven M. Wise's Article: Should Animals Deserve Legal Rights?

A ‘right’ is a legal entitlement to have and or obtain something and act in a certain way. Humans are the only one’s capable of grasping such a concept and altering their behaviors as to not infringe on another individual’s rights within a moral community. A moral community is defined as a group of individual beings who live in relation to each other and respect each other as moral individuals. Animals don’t behave in a moral manner within a moral community; rather they act selfishly and do not look out for the rights of others, instead looking out for the advantage of themselves. Therefore, since animals together do not display the characteristics of a moral community, they cannot be considered as part of such a unique concept restricted to humans.…

Words: 1056 - Pages: 5

An Argument For Animalism Analysis

In the thinking-animal argument, the premise that we can reject is 2. Olson leads us belief that human animals can’t think, now if you are a dualist and you consider the mind is separate from the human animal, and then you may see the clear distinction. Because that would mean that the mental and the physical (mind or body and brain) are different kinds of thing. But if you believe that you’re mind and body are connected then you might agree with Olson’s arguments. This argument aims to demonstrate how the absurdities derived from supposing animalism claim to be false.…

Words: 1160 - Pages: 5

Kantian Animal Ethics: Immanuel Kant

Regan wants all animal use and testing banned. His main points against Kant is that animals are humanities equal in every way that they are even rational. That because they are conscious they are part of the moral community. He then makes the argument that because they are conscious they can make moral decisions, so if animals can make moral decisions, what about those criminals who are morally challenged as not part of the moral community? He supports his own argument in a way that because animal’s lives can good or bad that they have their own ends and are not merely a means as Kant implies thus bringing them into the moral community again.…

Words: 892 - Pages: 4

Animal Thought And Reason Essay

Essay 3 Given what we know or can safely assume to be true of animal brains and behaviors, do animals actually exhibit thought and reason? The answer depends in large measure on one’s definition of thought and reason. Philosophers René Descartes and David Hume hold conflicting views about the nature and possession of thought and reason and, as a result, offer starkly different arguments for and against the existence of thought and reason in animals. While Descartes maintains in Part Five of Discourse on Method that only humans are capable of conscious thought, Hume asserts that human and animal behaviors are not so different in Section Nine of his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Descartes argues that although animals are…

Words: 1808 - Pages: 8

Importance Of Setience In Animal Rights

However, animals could not reciprocate that therefore they should not have rights. Also, attribution of rights to animals leads to absurdity. For if, say, a lamb has the natural right to be spared from undeserved pain, then the wolf, who devours it unmercifully, without the benefit of anesthetic, should be said to violate the lamb’s right. This is absurd, and so is the attribution of rights to animals.…

Words: 2293 - Pages: 10

The Principle Of Utilitarianism: Do Animals Deserve Moral Consideration?

Related Documents

Korsgaard's Theory Of Human Morality

Moral Status Of Animals Analysis

Carl Cohen's Article: Why Animals Have No Rights

Animalism In Eric Olson's View That We Are Animals

Thoughts On Thought In Animal Minds By Hobbes And Searle

Steven M. Wise's Article: Should Animals Deserve Legal Rights?

An Argument For Animalism Analysis

Kantian Animal Ethics: Immanuel Kant

Animal Thought And Reason Essay

Importance Of Setience In Animal Rights

Related Topics

Ready To Get Started?

Discover

Company

Follow