Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Abraham Saucedo

Ethics 2306
Animal Cruelty
Animal rights is a controversial topic that is discussed around the world. Many different people
have opposing views on the way we should treat animals. Some may argue that animals are only
to be used as food or as an instrument to help us perform specific tasks. Peter Singer was the
first philosopher that opposed this way of thinking. He suggested that there is no morally
justifiable way to exclude from moral consideration non-humans who can clearly suffer. (The
Moral Status of Animals) He means to say that any being, human or not, that has no interest in
suffering has the right to take that interest into account.
Humans are rational beings that are capable of recognizing if something is morally right
or morally wrong. So, if we have the ability to make these kinds of claims, we also have the
ability to recognize these claims. It is generally thought that all and only human beings make
such claims, because it is only humans who can respond to these claims. (The Moral Status of
Animals) Other animals have shown that they do have emotions by the way they interact with the
other members of their families. They pay close attention to the emotions of their members.
They have the ability to recognize if one of them is angry and they know to not bother them.
There is also one other criteria that separates the animals from the humans, it is the idea
of personhood. The theory talks about what it takes to be a person, and what makes something a
non-person. Kants categorical imperative describes a rational being as an end and not a mean.
Since animals are not rational beings, they are simply means, and therefore are considered
things. Humans also have the capacity to reflect on their actions, and this raises the problem of
normativity. These reflections give us the ability to analyze the actions we take and decide the
appropriate time to use them.

Abraham Saucedo
Ethics 2306
The moral status of animal should be taken into account and it should be treated with
direct consideration. They deserve this consideration because they are moral beings on their own
and not because of the relationship they have with humans. The term Animal Rights is used as
a synonym for the moral status of animals. Animal rights activists argue that animals are entitled
to the right of moral respect that cannot be overruled by any conditions. They speak against
factory farming of animals, such as dairy cows, chickens, and pigs. They are also against animal
testing and medical experimentation done on animals.
Peter singer uses a utilitarian view to explain why animals should not be abused. The
basic utilitarian theory states that right action is the one that causes the most overall good for
everyone involved. Peter singer includes animals with everyone, in the case of animal cruelty.
Humans have a moral status because of their ability to experience pain, therefore animals also
have a moral status and we must give them equal moral consideration. Speciesism is the
discrimination of non-human animals as a result of their species. From a moral point of view,
being from a certain species is irrelevant. Species membership itself cannot support the view
that members of one species, namely ours, deserve moral consideration that is not owed to
members of other species.(The Moral Status of Animals)
Comparable interests suggests that we should not value of interests of humans more than
that of an animal. An injured human should not receive more moral consideration than an
injured animal. We share some common interests with non-human animals, such as procreating
and avoiding pain. However, some interests may differ between species, which means that not
all species will be treated the same. A dog or a horse does not have an interest in learning about
the world, so we do not try and teach them like we do with children.

Abraham Saucedo
Ethics 2306
Using equal consideration of comparable interests, it is clear that the way meat is
produced is morally wrong and we should stop using the same method we have used. This can
also be said for animal testing. It is wrong because animals have an interest in avoiding pain,
just as we do, therefore we have to respect that interest.
Others may argue that we should treat animals however we want because they are only a
source of food, or simple instruments of labor. Animals do not have the mental capacity to make
moral judgments, so they do not deserve to be treated like humans. Non-human animals are
simple minded organisms that only exist to serve us. They help fulfill the human natural law
theory by providing us with food. They are part of nature, and the nature of humans is to kill
these animals to survive.
Some claim that animal cruelty is wrong only because it upsets others, or it damages their
property. This particular property is a soul, and a common religious conception is that humans
are the only beings that have souls. God also allowed for the killing of animals, but not the
killing of man in Exodus 20:13. Christians believe that Christ died to save the souls of human
beings, but it is not mentioned that he will save the souls of animals.
Many people believe that cruelty to animals is justified because they are using it as a
punishment. When a dog does not obey the orders of its master, they will beat the dog to show
that its disobedience is undesired. If the beating goes on for an extended period of time, the dog
will fear its master and will do what it is ordered out of fear, and not out of obedience. This may
prompt the master to continue beating the dog because he sees the fear the dog has, and uses it at
his advantage.

Abraham Saucedo
Ethics 2306
Another argument for animal cruelty is the retaliation against an animal. If a dog bites a
person, that person may abuse the dog out of revenge and will continue to do so until that person
is satisfied. This is not the same as self-defense, because the person continues to abuse an animal
after it shows no sign of hostility. Even if the animal shows signs of remorse, the abuser may not
find satisfaction and will continue to hit the animal.
At the extreme, people may resort to animal abuse to relieve their own stress. These are
the type of people that have some of form of a mental disorder. They find some pleasure in
seeing animals suffer. They may torture animals in many different ways, such as beating them,
burning them, and suffocating them. These people are very dangerous and may move on to
torturing humans in the future, because torturing animals does not satisfy them.
Another less common reason people abuse animals is for revenge. The revenge may not
be against the animal itself, but against another person. If a person has a personal vendetta
against someone else, hurting their pet may cause the owner to suffer. Beating, kidnapping, or
poisoning are common methods of revenge. This is very effective because the owners have a
strong emotional bond with their pets.
Animals should not be abused because they are sentient beings. Even if they are not able
to express their emotions towards us, their actions tell us if they enjoy or dislike a certain action.
Every animal deserves to be treated equally and should not be subject to cruelty or neglect. If we
are to own an animal we must treat them with respect and take into consideration their moral
status. If an innocent animal does do any harm to us, or does not intend to do any harm to us,
then it should be left alone. If animals It is wrong to treat an animal in a way that causes it pain,
and to continue to so knowing the animal is in pain is even worse.

Abraham Saucedo
Ethics 2306
If an injured dove is found on the side of a sidewalk, and a pedestrian walks up to it and
kicks it, that pedestrian has performed a morally wrong action. The pedestrian is wrong because,
the dove was injured, not bothering anyone, and instead of helping it, he chose to kick it. This
can be an example of animal cruelty because the pedestrian knew the dove was injured, and did
not take the doves pain into consideration.
Factory farms are inhumane and cruel to animals because of the conditions the animals
live in, and the way they are treated. Chickens, pigs, cows, and turkeys suffer when they are
placed in these farms. The industry does not care for the treatment of their animals, they only
care for the profit. Chickens are packed in small cages with little to no room to move. At a
young age, their beak is cut off with a hot blade which can cause severe pain to the chickens.
Male chicks are killed at birth since they are not profitable in the industry.
Pigs go through a short rough life in these farms. The majority of breeding sows spend
nearly the entirety of each pregnancy confined to a gestation create, which is only slightly larger
than their body, making it impossible for them to lie down comfortably or even turn around.
(Pork Production on Factory Farms) The hard floors cause injury to the pigs feet and joints
which can lead to lameness. Piglets are taken from their mothers a few days after they are born.
They may spend 5 to 6 months in pens until they reach market weight, and are then shipped to
the slaughter house.
Cows begin to suffer in these farms from the moment they are born. They are taken from
their mothers before they are a year old. The calves cry for their mothers so much that their
throat may become irritated. Their horns are removed, they are castrated, and they are branded.
Between 6 months and a year of age, cattle are moved from pasture to feedlots to be fattened for

Abraham Saucedo
Ethics 2306
slaughter. Calves gain weight on an unnatural diet and reach market weight of 1,200 pounds in
just 6 months. (Beef Production on Factory Farms) After they are fattened, cattle are sent to the
slaughter house.
Cruelty towards animals is wrong because they have the capacity to feel pain. They share
a common interest with us to avoid pain, and we must respect that interest. Their inability to
express their moral decisions does not give us liberty to treat them wrong. Species should not be
a factor in the moral treatment of any non-human animals and we should treat them equally.
One of the most common arguments of rights, is that only human beings possess these
rights. Any beings with these rights must claim these rights, which means they have to possess a
conscious ability of pursuing his interests. Animals cannot represent themselves in this way as
humans do, they cannot have rights. Even without rights, we are obligated to duties. An
individuals right to something is something that we should not invade, because the best overall
results would happen. If under a certain circumstance, the duties to those without rights can be
overridden if it is something important such as saving a life. This idea is used to justify why we
used animals for food, and animal experimentation.
There are two main points that dispute it. The first is that if humans have rights, then
animals will also have those rights. He declares that being able to represent oneself and be able
to pursue its interests. There is only one problem with being to represent oneself, infants, the
disorientated, those with other mental handicaps, and other marginal cases will be excluded to
these rights. The second point claims the idea of rights need to be discarded. This is because
philosopher question if the idea of rights is an earnest theory. The second point is that a beings
rights is determined by some type of lower-order property. In the above example, that lower-

Abraham Saucedo
Ethics 2306
order property is the ability to represent itself and is a being that pursues its own interests. If we
are to deny animals their rights and admit that humans are the only ones with these rights, then
we should focus on what establishes these rights.
Rene Descartes believed that animals are not conscious, so therefore we should not take
any consideration of their well-being into account when we are performing harmful actions
towards them. He supports his claims by describing their actions as a mechanism rather than a
conscious effort. This view should also be applicable to humans, but it does not for two main
reasons. The first reason is that humans are capable of complex thought. We are able to behave
this way because we have the ability to reason with the world around us. We observe our
environment and learn from it. The second reason, is the ability to communicate and express our
emotions thoroughly. Other animals make sounds to get a specific response from another
animal, but Descartes still views this as a mechanic behavior.
The argument from analogy is used to support that animals are conscious. The argument
sees the similarities between animals and humans as evidence of animal consciousness. Humans
and animals show the same type of behavior when presented with pain, for example. Many
animals also have many of the same, if not similar, organs as humans.
Peter Harrison argues against these points and believes that the Argument of Analogy is a
flawed argument. He begins by saying that the response to pain is not a valid point because
animals may not experience pain, even though they show the pain behavior. Some microscopic
organisms engage in pain-behavior, but they are not believed to feel pain. He attacks the second
point by saying that the physiological make up of an animal is not related to their ability to be
conscious or not.

Abraham Saucedo
Ethics 2306
Peter Carruthers provides another point arguing that animals do not have consciousness.
He suggests that humans dont always have conscious experiences. For example reacting to
something that is thrown at you from your peripheral vision is not a conscious experience,
because you never actually see the ball, and you just simply react. The difference between a
conscious and a non-conscious experience is that conscious experiences are subject to higherorder thought, while non-conscious experiences are not. He defines a higher order thought as a
thought that can take as its object another thought.(Animals and Ethics) He concludes by
saying that in order to be able to be conscious one must be able to have higher order thoughts.
Since there is no way to prove if animals have higher order thoughts, we do not think of them as
conscious.
Descartes view of animal behavior as mechanistic is flawed because animals make
logical decisions. Not all of the responses an animal makes is due to instinct. It can be urged to
make an action based on curiosity, and if it does not like it, it will simply avoid it next time. This
is evidence of reason, because animals constantly try to avoid pain. Other behaviors are also
learned and are not mechanistic. For example, you can teach a dog to fetch, and when it is
presented with a stick, it will show signs of joy. It is also possible that the dog will consciously
pick up a stick and take it to its owner, because it wants to play. There have also been instance in
which a pet knows when its owner is sad, and it tries to comfort him. This is evidence of animals
observing their environment and reacting to it, a trait that is also found in humans.
Tom Regan, on the other hand, argues that have the same amount of rights as humans do.
He believes that it is wrong to treat animals as if they had less, or unequal rights as humans. He
argues that we should view animals with the same rights we have; the moral status they have is
based on rights, and not on a utilitarian principle.

Abraham Saucedo
Ethics 2306
He begins by saying that any being that is subject of a life, or one that is living and
having its own unique experience, has inherent value. He states that any being with inherent
value should be treated with respect, so we cannot use a being with inherent value as a means,
but we must treat them as end. There are certain traits that a subject of a life might express.
Some of these traits include desires, and their ability to act on these desires, emotions showing
pleasure and pain, and logical independency.
Regan also analyzes and explains the flaws of Peter Singers Utilitarian theory. From a
Utilitarian point of view, we must take in all of the interests of all the people equally. According
to Regan, this puts its attention at the wrong idea. He declares that we should focus on the
individual being that has the interest, and not in the interest itself. If we focus on the interest
alone, it could cause more harm than actual good, and he backs it up by saying that any being
with inherent value should not be treated as simply a means. He also states that sometimes the
rights of animals may conflict, and one of the rights of one being must be denied.
With these points, he concludes that we must change the way we treat animals in an
impactful way. For example, we kill billions of animals a year, and that is only in the food
industry. This means that we are using the animals as a means to our own end, and not giving
the proper respect of being an end in themselves. By getting rid of the meat industry, we attend
to the interests of the animal, and give them the respect that they deserve.
The argument from marginal cases is a theory which conveys that if animals do not have
rights under certain requirements, then humans who do not meet these requirements do not have
rights as well. If we are not able to deny rights to the marginal cases, then we are not allowed to
deny the rights of animals. If having the ability to express your emotions and communicate with

Abraham Saucedo
Ethics 2306
other humans is what allows us to deny the rights to animals, then any who human who cannot
communicate or express their emotions is exempt from these rights. Their lack of intellectual
traits found in the normal adult humans would make them sub-human. Any infant, or person
who is mentally disabled, or in a comatose state would not have a direct moral status, and would
not have rights.
Immanuel Kant developed a theory which stated that any permissible action is one in
which all individuals are willing to perform. The important concept of his theory is the
individuals will. Both humans and animals have desires which they are able to act upon. The
only difference is that humans have the cognitive ability to think of which action to take, instead
of acting on instinct. Therefore, they are not proven autonomous, because they lack this will.
Kant states that good will is the only thing with intrinsic value, and animals do not have this will.
Therefore, if they cannot have good wills, then they do not have any intrinsic value.
In conclusion, animals are entitled to the same rights we have. The argument of Analogy
provides the reason that animals are conscious is because they are similar in the way they behave
as humans. Tom Regan states that any being that is a subject of a life has inherent value, and we
should respect them as equals to us. They must be treated as an end in themselves, instead of
using them as a means to our own ends. He emphasizes that we should not focus on the interest
itself, but we should focus on the being that has the interest. Unlike Descartes view, there have
been instances in which animals dont act on instinct, and instead act on reason and logic.

Abraham Saucedo
Ethics 2306

References
Gruen, Lori, "The Moral Status of Animals", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter
2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/moral-animal/>.
Wingo, Ajume, "Akan Philosophy of the Person", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/akan-person/>.
Corbett, Bob. "Bob Corbett's comments on Peter Singer's Analysis that leads to speciesism."
Webster University. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://www.websteruniv.edu/~corbetre/
philosophy/animals/singer.html>.
Farm Sanctuary. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2013. <http://www.farmsanctuary.org/>.
Wilson, Scott D. "Animals and Ethics." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Wright State
University,
23 Oct. 2001. Web. 15 May 2013. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SH2b>.

Вам также может понравиться