Contact Not just intelligence: Therefore, some argue, since having a larger brain is just another quirk, like having larger tusks, animals should have many of the same rights as humans.
Indirect Theories On indirect theories, animals do not warrant our moral concern on their own, but may warrant concern only in so far as they are appropriately related to human beings. The implications these sorts of theories have for the proper treatment of animals will be explored after that.
Finally, two common methods of arguing against indirect theories will be discussed. One of the earliest and clearest expressions of this kind of view comes to us from Aristotle B.
According to Aristotle, there is a natural hierarchy of living beings. The different levels are determined by the abilities present in the beings due to their natures.
While plants, animals, and human beings are all capable of taking in nutrition and growing, only animals and human beings are capable of conscious experience. This means that plants, being inferior to animals and human beings, have the function of serving the needs of animals and human beings.
Likewise, human beings are superior to animals because human beings have the capacity for using reason to guide their conduct, while animals lack this ability and must instead rely on instinct.
It follows, therefore, that the function of animals is to serve the needs of human beings. This, according to Aristotle, is "natural and expedient" Regan and Singer, Following Aristotle, the Christian philosopher St.
Thomas Aquinas argues that since only beings that are rational are capable of determining their actions, they are the only beings towards which we should extend concern "for their own sakes" Regan and Singer, Aquinas believes that if a being cannot direct its own actions then others must do so; these sorts of beings are merely instruments.
Instruments exist for the sake of people that use them, not for their own sake. Since animals cannot direct their own actions, they are merely instruments and exist for the sake of the human beings that direct their actions.
Aquinas believes that his view follows from the fact that God is the last end of the universe, and that it is only by using the human intellect that one can gain knowledge and understanding of God.
Since only human beings are capable of achieving this final end, all other beings exist for the sake of human beings and their achievement of this final end of the universe. Remnants of these sorts of views remain in justifications for discounting the interests of animals on the basis of the food chain.
On this line of thought, if one kind of being regularly eats another kind of being, then the first is said to be higher on the food chain. If one being is higher than another on the food chain, then it is natural for that being to use the other in the furtherance of its interests.
Since this sort of behavior is natural, it does not require any further moral justification. Kant developed a highly influential moral theory according to which autonomy is a necessary property to be the kind of being whose interests are to count direclty in the moral assessment of actions Kant, According to Kant, morally permissible actions are those actions that could be willed by all rational individuals in the circumstances.
While both animals and human beings have desires that can compel them to action, only human beings are capable of standing back from their desires and choosing which course of action to take. This ability is manifested by our wills. Since animals lack this ability, they lack a will, and therefore are not autonomous.
According to Kant, the only thing with any intrinsic value is a good will. Since animals have no wills at all, they cannot have good wills; they therefore do not have any intrinsic value.The practice of animal experimentation has been debated for centuries—seemingly pitting the pursuit of knowledge and human health against compassion for animals.
Society has allowed animal experimentation because people have been convinced that it was a “necessary evil,” and that it was the only way to find cures for human diseases and to.
But you do not need to rely solely on objective data to reach the conclusion that animals should be treated with respect. All of the world’s major religions call for compassion toward animals.
The result is a complex picture: public opinion is mixed and context-specific; the number of animals used is a guesstimate due to lack of reporting for certain species; and laws are not keeping pace with students’ interest in dissection alternatives.
Animal Testing as a Result of the Lack of Human Respect towards Animals PAGES 7. WORDS 2, View Full Essay.
More essays like this: animal testing, cruelty to animals, animal testing effects. Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin - Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University. Exactly what I needed.
Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity. Animal nature has analogies to human nature, and by doing our duties to animals in respect of manifestations of human nature, we indirectly do our duty to humanity.
We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals (Regan and Singer, ). Beyond the need to recognize and put an end to animal cruelty for the sake of the animal victims involved, also important is the very direct connection between animal cruelty and human violence.