Animal Rights

Animal Rights
The ethics of animal rights is a controversial issue. The conflict exists when balancing the human need for meat and other services from animals. In the quest to satisfy mans’ need for meat, billions of animals are slaughtered. On the research front, laboratory experiments use an estimated two hundred million animals around the world. In this case, they are subjected to all sorts of torture in the name of research so as to benefit humanity. Pessimists argue that a huge portion of these laboratory animals are subjected to discomfort and pain. On the worst case, some of them die as a result of stress and infections during testing of drugs. Similarly, about two hundred and fifty million game animals are shot by hunters in the United States, increasing the cases of torture on animals.
In as much as people continue to consume meat from different animals, the condition under which they are kept in farms, labs, and factories questions whether they are living things (Franklin 24). People keep animals as their resource and do with them as they please disregarding the fact that they experience pain and stress. As such, there have to be ways through which animals are treated despite the fact that they are used to satiate man’s desires. That means acts of subjecting animals to unnecessary stress and torture should stop. A few movements have come out strongly with the view of preventing animal cruelty such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals established in 1824 (Berlatsky 121).

Its goal from the onset has been the protection of horses which for long have been mistreated. This movement has also managed to counter some ills such as the ban on blood spots in agriculture, hunting, research, and circuses. As such, activists have managed to focus attention on animal welfare as well as promote political consensus regarding the stop of animal cruelty.
In most instances, people are oblivious to the amount of torture farm and lab animals are subjected to during their slaughter (Franklin 25). A significant number of them are clouded by the idea that animals experience a moderate amount of pain, therefore, justifying the acts of torture. For instance, J. Nelson of Texas used to subject his dogs to high voltage shocks to make these animals acquire anxiety at a fast rate (Dudley 94). In a different case, scientists in Texas build pneumatic pistons meant to pound an anvil to the skulls of test monkeys. However, at the first hit, the test animals only experienced concussions. The strength of the piston was increased, and the effect was that these animals hemorrhaged until they had brain damage (Rowlands 91). Here, the school of thought is such senseless levels of animal torture should not be tolerated. Despite the fact that animals cannot sign contracts, it is not a justification for people to do as they please with the pets and commercial animals that they own (Berlatsky 118). With that, this paper will focus on the rights, utilitarian view and sympathy that should be directed to animals.
The advocacy of animal rights can best be described to have hit an impasse. As a result, the vast arguments and strategies that have been gathered over the years from around the world have had no success (Dudley 123). However, people are becoming aware of the issue of the need for animal rights as raised by advocates of this course. Therefore, the need for animal rights is increasingly picking up the pace, but people are unable to address the challenge as well as ethical issues concerning the cruelty faced by animals. In that way, the fundamental wrong is the system where animals are treated in a cruel manner. For instance, electrodes put in the brain of a chimpanzee to test its functioning. In this case, people are allowed to view animals as their resources (Dudley 124). Therefore, they can do with them whatever makes them happy. And once people accept this notion, there is no limit to the list of unfortunate things they can do to animals.
In essence, animals only exist for people to use and therefore what causes harm to them is not their concern. On the contrary, people are only bothered when they are unable to use animals (Franklin 33). The wrong here is attached to the view that animals are resources. For instance, after rearing a cow in close confinement, it is then killed for beef. In that respect, the way to remedy this wrong is improving the manner of raising the animal as well as the total dissolution of commercial beef farming. The question to ask is the morality of people who deny the existence of rights for animals (Franklin 37). There are those that believe that people do not owe animals and therefore do not have direct duties for them. In that view, if one’s neighbor kicks their dog, then they have wronged them except the animal. Here, there is the disregard that the dog suffered from the pain of the kick.
The supporters of the idea of animal rights have a firm belief that have some value that differs entirely from their use by human beings (Berlatsky 140). As such, they are free from subjection from pain and any suffering. Animal rights do not only signify a philosophy but a movement that awakens the society about the traditional idea that the sole purpose of animals is use by human beings. Most of such movements advocate for a balance in the manner of treatment and use of animals. With that, the people can learn to appreciate that animal are responsive to feelings of pain and should be treated in a manner that reduces this burden for them (Berlatsky 142). Then, animals have a moral right which should be obeyed irrespective of the fact that people treat them with little or no respect. For instance, in the case of billions of chicken slaughtered annually in the U.S, better treatment solutions can be devised to ease the pain for these animals.
Animal rights play a significant role in teaching people about wrongs in society as a subject of principle (Dudley 125). As such, human beings must, by all means, avoid doing such things irrespective of the compromise they will be forced to make. For instance, if some animals are banned from breeding for food, people should look for alternative forms of protein. More so, individuals and adult animals share moral rights since they have the capability to reproducing. As such, they are aware of their existence and what is happening in their environment. Therefore, if being subject to life means having an inherent value, then animals should be treated fairly. On the contrary, while animal rights movements advocate for the value of animal rights, a lot of stress is put on people (Dudley 127). More so, some people feel that animals are not conscious and were put on the earth for them to use. Similarly, some religious leaders hold the thought that only beings with souls should have moral rights.
The principle of utilitarianism branches from consequentialism and focuses on the repercussions of actions as opposed to intentions of the particular actors (Gruen 345). It asserts that the idea of morality is increasing the right consequences of sentient existences. The theory suggests that people are required to do only the good actions to maximize the desirable effects (Berlatsky 31). In the context of animal rights, people thus have the obligation of ending the suffering of animals (Berlatsky 131). The number of animals slaughtered globally for human consumption keeps increasing. However, with the need to satisfy the high demand for meat products, animals are kept in small cages where their movement is limited. Therefore, what the animals can do is feed and drink water to stay alive. This treatment creates stress for them and more so the painful slaughtering process (Berlatsky 134). As such, while people have to consume meat from various animals, the processing system should change to accommodate the moral value owed to animals.
Just like the right view, the utilitarian theory disregards the use of prejudice when making moral decisions (Rowlands 104). For instance, when a utilitarian is faced with two situations where they have to take a decision, they would choose the one that brings the least amount of suffering. For instance, if asked to brutally kill a chicken or knock a dog using their feet; they would choose the second option. The interests of an individual are independent of their race, color and sex. The utilitarian concept works correctly when a person’s decision involves pain as well as pleasure (Rowlands 110). However, this principle is not directly involved in reducing pain. For instance, in the animal rights case, a utilitarian can only find solutions to improving animal conditions but not the physical and psychological pain that they experience. The only challenge that a utilitarian encounters is that they cannot take a decision when death is involved.
Most of the individuals that consider themselves as utilitarians cannot find a solution when faced with the death puzzle. However, Singer tries to defend this point through the use of preference utilitarianism (Berlatsky 151). His argument is that rational and self-conscious people have the capability of choosing particular references for their continued existence. Therefore, on the issue of animal rights, such individuals could be useful in the creation of viable solutions. Their idea is finding options that will create a balance between the demand of animal rights activists and the fair treatment of animals (Berlatsky 152). Such kind of reason is required as most people have utter disregard for animals. Therefore, they are not concerned with what happens, but their focus is the benefits they are bound to enjoy. That is the kind of reasoning required for a course that has for long been losing direction as a result of the ignorance that most people have. Few people are willing to invest their energy in the animal rights movements making it difficult to achieve the desired output.
On the matter of experimenting with animals, there are different opinions from various divides. What is theoretically proven differs entirely from what is actualized. Regan asserts that animal rights should be considered abolitionist (Gruen, 345). That is to say that when animals are used for needless researches, the only concern is the benefit that comes to the people involved. Therefore, the only solution to this worrying problem is to totally avoid the use of animals in trivial experiments (Dudley 101). His view is that he does not advocate for abolitionism since in extreme cases it breaks down. In some cases, experiments have to be conducted to determine the effects of drugs as diseases. Therefore, using the rationality of a utilitarian, the best option is regulating experiments for scientific purposes (Rowlands 111). While the solution may not be permanently solved, the number of animals subjected to unnecessary discomfort will reduce (Dudley 103). Most importantly, an experiment that serves the interests of an entire population is a worthy course and should be allowed. Similarly, in the case of human diseases, research would be necessary if done to a mentally disabled person to save the lives of many.
Animal rights activists have been driven by the fact that animals suffer when subjected to harsh conditions (Berlatsky 115). However, while hold and protect this idea, many people are oblivious to the fact that animals experience pain just as human beings and they need to stop using cruel means. Theorists of animal care emphasize on the approach to upholding welfare issues so as to avoid all contentious issues by all means (Berlatsky 116). The idea is to negate animal suffering from the point of care theory, but the goal is not maximizing the consistent application of animals’ theory. However, the fact that human beings have some form of relation to animals mean that they have to show care for them. Therefore, care theorists ground the moral duties of people to animals as well as their relationships and then promote the debate as to whether animals have the cognitive capability of understanding possession (Sanbonmatsu 132). More so, sympathy allows people to show care for their animals by sidelining all forms of torture.
The contractualism theory of Tom Reagan is that all human and animal life have inherent moral values (Gruen 347). As such, in the same way, human life is less valuable than another so is that of animals. Therefore, it would be wrong to judge a person and deem their life as less valuable than that of babies. In that manner, so would it be a mistake to judge animal life as less valuable compared to that of human beings (Sanbonmatsu 134). That means animals have a right to moral status and therefore they should be cared for. People should thus show sympathy in the case where animals are subjected to any form of pain or torture. This view by Reagan does not in any way tolerate discrimination (Franklin 77). More so, his theory extends to human beings in the same way as in animals where its application is abolitionist and uncompromising. With that, the same rule extends to hunting trapping and commercial farming or animals.
Philosophers, long before Reagan, identified that for a decision to be and declared ethical; then it should go beyond one’s partiality (Gruen 348). Ethics must be universal, and this can be accomplished through abstract reasoning. As such, if an individual values the life of a being, then they should value the lives of other animals in a similar manner. In the same way as Reagan’s view, animals have inherent benefits just like people. Therefore, for people to understand their duties to one another, they should appreciate the values between them and not just the sentiments. This motion is based on the fact that reason compels people to recognize that meaning of inherent equal values with animals (Franklin 78). And with that, people can learn to care and prevent unnecessary suffering to animals irrespective of whether they are the owners or not. More so, have a basic understanding that valuing animals is an individual decision.
People’ cruelty toward animals does not reduce if they are unable to show some level of sympathy or enjoy their suffering (Dudley 36). Cruelty as bad as it sounds signifies the failure of human beings to appreciate that animals have a right to moral value. However, in the same way, a person driven by kindness does not provide the assurance that they will do the right thing; so does the lack of cruelty guarantee that they will do the right thing (Dudley 39). As such, doing the right thing concerning sympathy for animals is an individual goal. With that, people get to distinguish between doing good and bad. More so, doing something and not the other does not justify that an individual is a champion of the right course (Dudley 39). For instance, being an advocate of planting tree and showing no respect for animals is a bad thing in totality. That means, that to be a champion of animal rights, one has to dedicate all their efforts and not just be there for the sake of it.
Philosophers recognize that the appeals made towards sympathy for animals are avoided by some people. For instance, John Fisher identifies that the inclusion of animals in the same moral dimension as human beings is undermined by the act of neglecting the role played by showing sympathy (Sanbonmatsu 148). His argument is that sympathy is the key ingredient in moral theory and helps in the determination of the recipients of proper concerns. Furthermore, he adds that people who can sympathize can morally be considered (Sanbonmatsu 149). However, the challenge is that the manner of treating these beings is a function of our ability to show sympathy for them (Gruen 346). That means that in a fair situation when one is sympathized with, so should they show the same courtesy. Therefore, as it applies to animal rights, these living creatures should be sympathized with, irrespective of the function that human beings have for them. It is of no use to torture them while the goal is to benefit from their meat and skin.
Human beings have the capability of showing mercy and sympathy towards animals (Berlatsky 118). The manner in which they treat their pets and livestock at home is an indication of their true nature and impulses. More so, the kind of treatment given to animals is a sign of the kind of person want would want to be as well as thinks about (Sanbonmatsu 152). Some people have tried to understand the link between the manner in which human beings treat animals and their fellow men. Ideally, animals have a claim for fair treatment by their keepers whether they want or not. As such, it is the duty of such people to protect their pets and farm animals by showing sympathy when they suffer (Sanbonmatsu 154). Such a direction would reduce the overall unfair treatment of animals as seen in meat factories and farms all around the world. More so, there would be a better treatment for animals to ensure that they are not stressed or handled carelessly.
The matter of animal rights is a controversial issue as brought forward by activists. Throughout the world, a lot of animals are slaughtered to satisfy people’s need for meat. More so, some scientists conduct dubious experiments for their personal gains exposing the test animals to immense pain and discomfort. In other instances, some animals suffer at the hands of poachers and hunters. For example, elephants and rhinos are hunted for their tusks where they are left in pain after dehorning. The controversy mostly exists in the meat processing industry where animals are slaughtered while conscious. As such, the whole process becomes torturous as opposed using less extreme methods. In that regard, the animal rights issue can only be solved by showing sympathy, and the utilitarian view. The entire meat processing process cannot change within a single day. However, with continued advocacy for the right courses, soon some practices such as illegal animal experiments will come to an end. Similarly, the consideration of the rights view will play key in understanding the moral rights of animals. With that, it will be possible to create a perfect balance between the fair treatment of animals and consideration of activists.
Works Cited
Berlatsky, Noah. Animal Rights. , 2015. Print.
Dudley, William. Animal Rights. Farmington Hills, Mich: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Print.
Franklin, Julian H. Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Print.
Gruen, Lori. Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.
Rowlands, Mark. Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print.
Sanbonmatsu, John. Critical Theory and Animal Liberation. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011. Print.