Issue of Animal Rights
This is an excerpt from the paper...
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 mea
. . .
erociously protected. Those are animal traits, not animal rights. It is easy to see why the so-called "higher species", namely Man, has interests which may conflict with so-called "animal rights" and therefore must supercede them. Steinbeck (1978) puts Peter Singer to task by claiming that Singer's idea of "speciesism" is tantamount to "sexism" or "racism", and therefore fairly inflammatory. Steinbock rebuts Singer: "Intelligence is thought to be a morally relevant capacity because of its relation to the capacity for moral responsibility" (Steinbock 1978 439). In other words, we are back to the starting point of this essay: morality is a human trait, or, at least, a human-ordained series of guidelines. And if morality includes the giving, accepting and observing of certain rights, then Steinbock is correct when she writes: "It might be thought that the issue of equality depends on a discussion of rights. According to this line of thought, animals do not merit equal consideration of interests because, unlike human beings, they do not, or cannot, have rights" (Steinbock 1978 449).
In researching the various articles, one can come to a sort of haphazard conclusion: Animals ought to be treated humanely. But, they are still a low
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Singer Intelligence, Rights Activists, Universe Singer, Law Nature, Washington DC, Rights Machan, God- Man-created, Peter Singer, Israel California, Idea Equality, non-human animals, singer 1990, animals rights, steinbock 1978, animal rights, machan 432, humane treatment, animal kingdom, treatment non-human animals, believe animals, rest animal, singer 1990 273, animals rights answer,
Approximate Word count = 1277
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
