Animal Rights, Research Paper Example

Animal Rights/ Human duties, Responsibilities and Moral Obligations

A very controversial topic is that of personal responsibilities to animal rights.  Is it possible to have a consistent moral position regarding animal rights?  Where do we draw the line of what right animals are to be given?  And at whose expense?  There may not be a solid, argument free answer to these questions, but addressing personal responsibility it a start.  Treating animals with respect and honoring our moral obligation does not mean we are to become vegans, it simply means that ethical consideration needs to be implied when handling areas involving animals.

To determine it is necessary to become vegan to protect an animal is not a decision that can be made with any consistency.  By this I mean, animals will not stop eating other animals, it is their instinct, and it is how they survive.  Perhaps addressing the means by which animals are raised and slaughter for human consumption is a better area to pursue when it comes to human duties, moral obligations and responsibilities. “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men”(Kant, 240). Animals themselves do not follow the rights avenue, because it is not what is best for them, and their personal survival.  Human beings have the same rights, within certain boundaries.  The argument, as Kant described is better suited for cruelty and inhuman acts, not based on essentials for survival.

There is a Golden Rule of Animal Rights that states, “treat the creatures below you as you would wish to be treated by a creature above you.”  This is not a rule that can be followed with consistency.   By this I mean, you will not be able to stop a bear from eating a deer, outside of virtually quarantining every carnivorous animal.  Even if, on the absurd chance that this could happen, certain animals would become ill and potentially die if they are deprived of a meat diet.  This is, in essence, is just another way of  killing an animal.  Denying a lion right to survive in order to save the wildebeest can still be viewed as a violation of animal rights as well.

It is conceivable to consider that humans have the same rights as lions and bears.  Meaning, that humans eating meat is not a pleasure, more so, it is a necessity.  There is certain amount of substance that meat brings to the human body that vegetable can not compensate for.  By no means am I saying that humans will fail to exist if meat is denied, however, much like the carnivorous animals, they could become sick and dangerously ill.  The problem does lie in the means the animals are handled in preparation for human consumption.  The issue that needs to be addressed is more on the level of treating them well during their growth process, and making it a quick painless death.

Animals are governed by instinct, meaning they are, in fact, void of free will.   They cannot exercise their rights or their moral patients because they are unable to choose between what facilitate right and wrong.  Relating human rights and animal’s rights as being equal is not an intelligent comparison.  Animals do not have the same mental capacity or values as humans, so why should equal comparison be utilized? “May they (animals) be hunted? To this the answer is no, not by humans; but presumably their rights are not infringed if they are hunted by animals other than human beings.  And here the real difficulties start.  If all animals had a right to freedom to live their lives without molestation, then someone would have to protect them from one another.  But this is absurd…”   (Warnock, 118)

My personal position on animal ethics came back with equal utilitarian and animal rights.  Animal rights say, ”Good results cannot justify evil means” (“Animal Ethics Dilemma.”)  By this it is meant that there is a ethical guide to handling animals, what is right and what is not.  Animal have rights however this can be taken to extremes in some situations.   The utilitarian belief is “Morality is about maximising human and animal well-being” (“Animal Ethics Dilemma.”) This is where animal welfare has to be considered along with human benefit.  It is justifiable to kill animals if their environment is humane and their death is painless. 

According to David S. Oderberg’s book, Applied Ethics: a Non-Consequentialist Approach, there are two main dilemmas that face animal rights supporters.  There is a vegan based on ethical grounds that being right based.  Consequentialist rationalizes their vegetarianism on ethical grounds, due to the horrific conditions that animals have to suffer through with intensive farming and the slaughtering process.  These individuals believe that animals can be eaten if they are raised in a good environment and killed painlessly and quickly.  On the other end of the spectrum, there is the right view.  This is the belief that animals have the right to life, and there are no grounds to kill them for food.  However, contradicting this view is the animals themselves who kill for food too.  If they had rights to consider, they would be held under the same ethical consideration to not kill others for food as well.  “A reduction ad absurdum is the idea that animals have rights.” (Oderberg, 137)  If animals could possibly be denied eating others, they could become very ill and die.  Animals do not have free will and are void of right view.   This is a dilemma of a coherent can consistent system.

There is a long list of concerns that vegans face in their professional lives that are difficult ethical problems.  The growing dilemma of the convenience of euthanasia.  The unwanted horse slaughter and transport dilemma.  The horse and dog racing industry issues. Farm animal welfare issues that conflict with intense production of meat, milk, and eggs.  The pay for services rendered delivery of veterinary services.  Dog and cat overpopulation. And pollution of agents and waste in food animal production.  The list goes on and on in the fight for animal welfare and ethical consideration.  These can all be answered with the same rationale, treating animals with respect and honoring our moral obligation does not mean we are to become vegans, it simply means that ethical consideration needs to be implied when handling areas involving animals.  Keeping human values and moral actions in mind, inhumane treatment will never be an issue.

Works Cited

“Animal Ethics Dilemma.” Web.  6 Dec. 2011.  http://ae.imcode.com/en/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1007

Kant, Immanuel.  Lectures on Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997. Print. Pp. 238-242

Oderberg, David S. Applied Ethics a Non-Consequentialist Approach. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publisher Ltd. 2000.  Print.  Pp 136-138

Warnock, M.  An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Ethics.  London: Duckworth. 1998.  Print. Pp 113-128