A discussion on animal rights and the view of philosophers

Since animals are not capable of representing themselves in this way, they cannot have rights.

peter singer animal rights

This behavior is not the result of simple responses to stimuli, but is instead the result of our reasoning about the world as we perceive it. On this line of thought, if we kill a non-self-conscious being that was living a good life, then we have lessened the overall amount of good in the world.

Canids and primates are particularly adept at it, yet even chickens and horses are known to recognize large numbers of individuals in their social hierarchies and to maneuver within them.

Nussbaum, Martha C. Kant argues: Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity. As Rosalind Hursthouse recognized after having been exposed to alternative ways of seeing animals: I began to see [my attitudes] that related to my conception of flesh-foods as unnecessary, greedy, self-indulgent, childish, my attitude to shopping and cooking in order to produce lavish dinner parties as parochial, gross, even dissolute.

Singer describes that principle as follows: The essence of the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests is that we give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions Singer, Related articles. In the Lectures on Ethics he makes it clear that we have indirect duties to animals, duties that are not toward them, but in regard to them insofar as our treatment of them can affect our duties to persons.

If that is what grounds rights, then what is needed is a discussion of the moral importance of that ability, along with a defense of the claim that it is an ability that animals lack. This wide range of positions allow plenty of room for disagreement.

Some are even said to die of sorrow. We cannot measure animal rights impartially or scientifically.

Rated 5/10 based on 89 review
Animals and Ethics