Presentation on theme: "The Human Conscience in Animal Rights “Discrimination on the basis of sex, it has been said, is the last universally accepted form of discrimination, practiced."— Presentation transcript:
The Human Conscience in Animal Rights “Discrimination on the basis of sex, it has been said, is the last universally accepted form of discrimination, practiced without secrecy or pretense…” - Peter Singer
What exactly is Animal Rights? Animal rights, or animal liberation, is the movement to protect non-human animals from being exploited by humans. It is a radical movement, insofar as it aims not merely to attain more humane treatment for animals, but to include many animals within the moral community — that is, all those whose basic interests (for example, in not being made to suffer unnecessarily) ought to be given the same consideration as our own similar interests....
The Concept of Humanitarianism… An ulterior goal of preserving the welfare of humankind with respect to fair treatment and all the other basic necessities for survival which would include food, shelter, and protection. Compared to “Animalitarianism” As such their main philosophy encompasses the same basic fundamental principles and rights necessary for survival, which equates to food, shelter, and protection for animals.
The Suffering… We agree that animals do face suffering in modern day society to an even greater extent at the wrath of industrialization. Zoos & Aquariums Entertainment Laboratories Experimentation Factory farms Exploited/ Processed for clothing Family farms Slaughtered/ Consumption The philosophy of animal rights aims to justify that animals and humans can equally face suffering and mistreatment, and display signs of that mistreatment, whether verbal or non-verbal. “Merely to reform injustice is to prolong injustice.” Dr. Tom Regan
DeGrazia vs. Singer An interesting ‘Interest’… Sliding-Scale Model of Moral Status’, which says that one would grant unequal moral weight to the interests, including the avoidance of suffering, of different beings depending on their cognitive, emotional, and social complexity In contrast Peter Singer idealizes a principle of equality; Singer introduces a utilitarian concept that encompasses all beings with interests, and it requires equal consideration of those interests regardless of the categorized species being. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests.
You’re a Speciesist… What? Animals are treated as a minority group in respect to species in society, which gave rise to the term ‘speciesism’ by Richard Ryder, which encompasses the view that the Homo-Sapiens are superior to every other species simple because it includes human kind. Regan points out in Darwin's words that humans differ from many other animals in “degree”, not in “kind”. Although there are genetically-based differences between men and women, and the same for animals and humans, it does not serve as a basis for discrimination. Peter Singer states that, “equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact.
The Arguments… Much greater sense of intellect and competence to that of animals, therefore it is impossible that animals and humans can have equality in any sense. Certainly humans and animals are not equal in intellect but are equal on other dimensions in the sense of being both psychological beings. Therefore since humans have an intellectual advantage and capacity to seek to the welfare of lesser advantaged species, then humans should make it their moral obligation to see to that welfare. Argument that animals eat each other for their own benefit; therefore it should not deprive other humans from doing the same. Regan’s ten reasons why humans go against animal rights, he states that people claim that animals do not observe human rights thus they are not obligated to observe animal rights. Regan’s rebuttal to that stated that in the same way infant children and deranged members of society do not have the capacity to respect those rights, so do animals, therefore the same treatment and consideration to which we give those individuals should be given animals and so it is no bearing to neglect our duty to respect their rights.
And it goes ON… Defense to eating meat is another that is widely used by animal rights opponents to state that eating meat is either natural, nutritional, and that widespread vegetarianism would be economically devastating. Fact is true because it is, however it is not the only source of identical nutrition available to mankind. Scientists have discovered the exact form of protein and nutrients in certain grains and vegetarian products, which absolutely dilutes the argument that man must eat meat to survive, when in fact we don’t. Plantation with people as slaves attached to the asset was natural during the era of slavery but it certainly is in no way natural today, in modern day society we either call that kidnapping, prostitution or criminal asylum. Singer points out that ‘our cheap food is subsidized by the cost to the environment, the health care system, and corn; we pay half as much for food as a percentage of our income as our grandparents did.’
Why kills animals who kill animals to show that killing animals is wrong… Our privileged place in nature is assured by the book of Genesis, where, we are told man has been granted dominion over all the animals of the earth. However the word dominion has had various interpretations and can be represented to mean having selfish power over a subject such as a lion would have over its prey, or an unselfish guardianship as according to Regan, in the sense of a moral obligation that a parent would have over a child to take care of them, and not to do whatever they please
Animals are as much Food as We Are… “When we change the way we look at things, the things you look at change.” The society as we know it today may change in favor of animal with the continued interest in the issue.