Every day in the media we see pictures of the killing of humans - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, in California drive-by shootings, in gang retaliations outside Washington D.C. With all that human horror and tragedy, why should we be concerned about harm, and even death, done to "mere" animals? One has to determine whether, or even if, the humane treatment and respect for non-human animals is merely a moral question, or simply one of a religious principle that all God's creatures deserve respect. The belief here is that morality is an acquired human trait. But, that makes humans' actions toward non-human animals as fairly condescending. Singer (1990) quotes Henry Sedgwick: "The good of any one individual is of no more importance from the point of viewaof the Universe, than the good of any other" (Singer 1990 273). However, this leaves the question "Any other What?" Are non-human animals considered individuals?
Singer (1990) also discusses the principle of equality, namely, "that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to depend on what they are like or on which abilities they possess" (Singer 1990 273). Nevertheless, we are caught in a see-saw between those religionists and moralists who believe animals have equal rights to humans, because, after all, humans sprang from the animal kingdom;' and those who believe that God created Man (and no other animal) in his image. Therefore, the religionists tend to believe, animals are meant to serve, to protect, and to nourish Man.
However, the moral question of "rights" looms large in this argument about the moral treatment of non-human animals. Bentham is quoted: "The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never should have been withholden (sic) from them but by the hand of tyranny" (Bentham 274).
Machan even entitles his article "Do Animals Have Rights?" (Machan 432). He argues against t...