Atheism
Politics
Memes
Mind
Matters
String
Random
Interact
Feedback
Links
Debate
Home
Rights for animals
Kill the Puppy Dogs
Eating Horses
The Principle of Utility
Abortion
Astrology is Bunk
GM Food
Don't Eat Me!
Is Sex With Animals Always Wrong?
Aborting Babies
Religious indoctrination is child abuse
Paedophilia is Not a Crime
Sustainable Development
The Big Lie
Vasectomy: a Survivor's Tale
By Thomas WillettsTheories and Issues in Moral Philosophy |
 |
In their writings, philosophers Peter Singer and Carl Cohen have examined the controversy surrounding animal rights and have reached very different conclusions. This essay will be an analysis of how their differing theoretical commitments yield opposing views on the subject of animal rights.
Singer, a Utilitarian, argues that because animals have the ability to experience pain and suffering, they should be afforded the same moral considerations as any other sentient being, (i.e. Homo sapiens) with sentience being defined as the ability to experience pain or pleasure. There is no appreciable difference between the pain felt by a member of one race (if such a thing can even be defined) and a member of another. As such they are given equal moral consideration. The same can be said of the different genders. What basis is there, then, for the unequal consideration given to members of other species if they possess the same capacity as humans for pain and suffering? The answer is there is none; all species deserve equal moral consideration under the principle of utility.
Just because, on the whole, a species may feel pain and pleasure, that does not mean that all the individual members of that species have an equal ability to experience suffering. Under Singer's argument, a severally handicapped human (a brain-dead person for example) will fell much less pain than would a healthy adult dog if both were afflicted with the same injury and so the dog would receive more consideration than would the human. The only criteria for determining whether or not an animal should receive moral consideration (and therefore possess "rights") is the potential for that animal to experience pain.
The use of animals in medical research should be regulated in accordance with the principle of utility (as should everything if you're a Utilitarian!) according to Singer. If the animal subjects of medical research are deprived of pleasure and inflicted with pain, then the practice is immoral and should cease. It is, however, preferable to use nonhuman animals in medical research due to the fact that humans could be said to suffer more from forced experimentation as explained by Singer in his example of humans being randomly kidnapped from a park for use in extremely painful or lethal experiments. Animals (we assume) do not have the capacity to be afraid of being kidnapped in the same way that humans would. The terror experienced by humans fearful of being kidnapped any time they enter the park would be in addition to that of the experiments while other animals, incapable of the anticipatory dread of being kidnapped, would only feel the effects of the experiments themselves. Because of the lessened pain of the animals, it would be preferable to use the nonhuman animals in this scenario, if it had to be played out at all.
There are other cases where it may be morally better to use humans in medical research instead of animals. It would cause less stress and anxiety to a human, due to their understanding the future implications (saved lives, eradication of diseases, etc.) of undergoing uncomfortable or even painful experiments whereas the animal of limited mental faculties, would only feel the pain without knowing why it is being treated in such a way. In other words, it would be better to use volunteers than conscripts.
The view of Cohen, a Kantian, is very different than that of Singer. Cohen argues that, due to the nature of the beast, humans alone possess the ability to presuppose the moral implications of their actions and rationally work out how they will affect others. Animals do not have this capacity and so are amoral. This does not mean that Cohen says we can treat animals anyway we want. We are obliged to act in a certain way toward animals because we know the outcomes of our actions. I am not morally bound to feed and exercise my dog every day, but I am obliged to because I know that if I don't he will become unhealthy.
In his writing, Singer gives the argument that because race and sex are no basis for discrimination, so then species should likewise be disregarded. Cohen vehemently disagrees; he is a speciesist. He contends that all the members of a particular species may be entitled to the same sort of consideration due to the fact they are of a "certain kind" and display a certain set of characteristics as a whole, but that different species do not equally posses the same qualities that, for instance, allow one species to reason out the implications of it's actions and so all species do not deserve equal moral consideration. Nonhuman animals are unable to conceive of the rules that govern (Kantian) moral behavior and so are simply outside the realm of morality. He further argues that speceisism is not only plausible, it is essential for "right conduct". The working out of one's true obligations requires the understanding of the different natures of the things to whom the obligations are owed.
Cohen defends the use of animals in bio-medical research by arguing that, given the principle of greatest utility, the happiness of the beneficiaries of the medical research far outweighs the pain of the subjects. Furthermore, he contends that the suspension of all medical research involving animals would surely lead to the deprivation of pleasure among those who would benefit from the research. In order to maximize the utility, the medical research must continue, although in as a humane manner as possible so as to minimize the pain.
While the argument put forth by Cohen is compelling in that humans are indeed unique in their capacity to reason out the moral implications of their actions, Singer's position is the most acceptable to me. Given the fact that all organisms have the capacity to experience pain and pleasure, they should be afforded moral consideration based on that capacity.
Having taken several courses in biology and various other sciences and having read extensively on the subjects of life, the universe, and everything, I have come to the conclusion that no organism is more entitled to "rights" than any other. Humans have no more right to make more humans than sea-cucumbers have to make more sea-cucumbers. While Singer would say that all things posses equal rights, I say that there actually exists no "right" to life. Nothing is inherently entitled to existence. Organisms live and reproduce because they are better adapted to their environment than are the competition; if there is such a thing a "right" to life, it is an earned right.
This is certainly not to say that simply because they happen to find themselves in a position of power, humans should do whatever the hell they want with their environment including, but not limited to, all nonhuman animals. The best course of action for rational beings would then be one that will yield the best chances of their progeny's existence. To ensure that there will continue to be humans, they should act in such a way as to ensure that there will also be more of everything else. It follows from the Principle of Utility that for there to be happiness, there must first be something around to experience it! This course of action calls for giving all animals the same moral considerations. Nothing is innately more valuable than anything else, including humans.