Non-Human Animals and Humans - PDF
Added on 2021-05-31
12 Pages3301 Words89 Views
|
|
|
Running head: NON-HUMAN ANIMALS AND HUMANS 1Non-Human Animals and HumansNameInstitutional Affiliation
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS AND HUMANS 2Stacy is a 25 years old ecology college studentJohn is Stacy’s friend and 26 years old.James is John's cousin, and he is 25 years old.The three of them are in Stacy’s home library. Stacy is looking at the Ecocentric Alliance website. John is doing his English assignment, and James is doing his Calculus assignment. Stacey remembers something that happened in her last lecture of the day. Stacey (Looking at John): Excuse me, John, can you take a break?John: No.Stacey: Oooh, okay.John: Sure, what is going on? I was joking. Stacey: That is not funny, John. Do you think it is morally right for people to use non-human animals their needs?John (nodding his head): Yes, why not? Stacey: Because anthropocentrism is on the rise. Human beings are exploiting such animals for their profit (Drengson, 2018). We were discussing this issue in class today. Nowadays, environmental ethics has incorporated the use of morality in defining the rights of non-human animalsJohn: Do animals have morals? Stacey: Callicott (2002) states that philosophers have defined ethics in relation to good and bad. Additionally, they have identified pain (which is attributed to suffering) as bad and relieving pain(pleasure) as good. I think morals apply to non-human animals because they feel pain. Do you know the dark green ethics?John: No.
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS AND HUMANS 3Stacey: Dark green ethics are used to define the moral standing of non-human animals, which determines if it is permissible for humans them. In Ecological Ethics: An Introduction (as cited in Curry, 2014), dark green ethics is used to protect the rights of non-human organisms by emphasizing that natural living organisms have intrinsic value. Additionally, the ethics clarify that not all challenges that humans encounter should be solved based on their effects on humans, which means that other animals should be considered too (Curry, 2014). Based on this understanding, non-human animals deserve to have a moral worth despite their purpose and should be protected suffering from attributed to human behavior.John: Okay, I think it is alright for us to use non-human animals. Human beings can make rational decisions and have self-awareness (Callicott, 2002). On the other hand, non-human animals are incapable of rationality due to their lack of intelligence. This means human beings deserve morals and non-human animals do not, which means morals should be considered only when dealing with humans.Stacey: What? Animals can think too. The fact that they cannot think like us does not make themunintelligent. Some animals express some level of intelligent. (To James) Do you agree with him?James: What was the question again?Stacey: Are you joking? James: No, you two started the discussion without me.Stacey: I asked whether it is ethical to use non-human animals for own needs such as food.James: Yes, animals can think, but they cannot tell what is wrong and right. For me, that means they should not have a choice on this.Stacey: Well, that is traditional Western Ethics.
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS AND HUMANS 4John: Sorry, what is that?Stacey: I read that Western ethics did not consider the value of non-human animals (Rowe, 2000). That is similar to what you are saying.John: No, I know they are valuable.Stacey: Western ethics are prejudiced because they do not consider the non-human animals whendetermining moral value. The explanation given is based on their inability to be rational and make decisions. On the other hand, some humans, such as those who are retarded, are not rational too. Why are mentally disabled humans not deemed unworthy of moral regard? Why are they treated like other human beings? If these humans are still treated morally right, it may not be ethically permissible to treat non-human animals as things to sustain human life. John: You do not expect us to mistreat the disabled. That is abusing them.Stacey: Why is it different for animals? John: Because...James: Let me check the internet for evidence.John (sarcastically): Really, this is not a test, James.James: Be quiet, I have something. Aristotle argued that the less rational beings were imperfect and existed to serve the more rational ones (Singer, 2002). This perspective was also supported by early Christian writers who agreed that common rights could not exist between humans and non-humans. Eventually, Thomas Aquinas combined the views of these Christians and Aristotle and concluded that non-human animals' welfare is only considered when it affects humans, which means it is not morally significant (Singer, 2002). Based on this understanding, human beings are to be served by the non-human animals. Therefore, it is morally right for human beings to use such animals for their interests.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.