Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Alex Ziech - The Wisdom of Animals Rights and Morality
As humans, we deem ourselves as inherently or intrinsically valuable. It is contested as to whether non-human animals have the capacity or “eminence” to possess intrinsic value, morality, or right. However, a good case for animal rights can be made through the application of ethical theories to animals and humans, examination of the nature of animals and humans, and investigation of cultures that implement animal rights. There are several ethical theories that can be applied to animal rights, such as Jeremy Bentham’s “Principles of Morals and Legislation”, even if they appear anthropocentric. While animals are often deduced to instincts and stimuli, there is significant evidence in support of animals having complex mental abilities like memory, perception, and pleasure and pain. Furthermore, animals enrich the ecosystem, providing an environment capable of supporting life and supplying us with all of our resources. As in the words of writer-naturalist Henry Beston, “we need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You mentioned "animals having complex mental abilities like memory, perception, and pleasure and pain", what about some animals that can't feel those, like the single cellular animals, do you think they are also intrinsically valuable, and future, should they be included in the social contract? What would happen to human diet if every animal is contracted by human beings?
ReplyDeleteYou say, "Furthermore, animals enrich the ecosystem, providing an environment capable of supporting life and supplying us with all of our resources." This seems anthropocentric even if it supports the environment and animals, because it suggests, like Biophelia, that we can use animals for support and supply. Which of the three traditional viewpoints do you want to get across for this topic? Is it ethically okay, do you think, to be anthropocentric AND an environmentalist?
ReplyDeleteHow could cultural relativism play a role in the determination whether an animal has intrinsic or instrumental value?
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing strictly for the ethical treatment of animals or are you trying to make the argument that animals have the exact same value and rights as humans?
ReplyDeleteDo you think animals have intrinsic rights whether or not they share commonalities with humans?
ReplyDeleteHow is intrinsic value determined? And does one must have it in order to have any rights at all?
ReplyDeleteHow does this topic go along with the gaia hypothesis and what world view does it follow?
ReplyDeleteDo you believe animals should have equal rights as humans? Should mistreating an animal have the same punishment as mistreating a human being? How could we better understand animals in a "mystical view"?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Runtian Bai's comment:
ReplyDeleteThere are no single-celled animals. One of the main characteristics of an animal is that it is a multi-cellular organism. Also, we do not have to eat animals to have a healthy diet. In fact many would argue that it would be healthier than an omnivorous diet. The only element from a diet with meat that we would miss is our essential amino acids, all of which are in the edible plant Quinoa.
In response to Sammy Maffeo:
ReplyDeleteMy statement regarding animals as one of the main supports in nature for all of our resources was not anthropocentric. It was an objective comment in that we define resources as things that we extract from nature to be sold or made into something else. I was simply defining resources as our political/ethical or economic structure considers them (which is highly anthropocentic), not that I agree with society's view of nature.
In your abstract you say that animals enrich the ecosystem. What about invasive species that have come into an environment and could potentially destroy it? What kind of rights do these animals have?
ReplyDeleteTo what extent are humans considered "animals" and what role should/do we play in interacting with animals? For example, are we all expected not to eat meat? If we do, then we are killing non-humans that we believe to have intrinsic value and we wouldn't simply kill another human. At the same time, if we refuse to eat meat, whereas many other animals in nature rely on hunting as part of their diet, we are separating ourselves from something very natural. What role does "survival of the fittest" play in to your argument?
ReplyDeleteHow far does animal rights extend into the animal community? Does an ant get the same consideration as a tiger, why?
ReplyDeleteanimal can enrich the ecosystem but how do you know it is a good thing for human being? they might bring more problems, such as disease/.
ReplyDeleteI don't quite like the way you answered Runtian Bai's comment. Yes, you are indeed completely correct in saying that one of the requirements to be in the kingdom animalia is that the organism must be multi-cellular, but then what are you inferring about the treatment of other living things that do not fall under the kingdom animalia? If you go by the domain system above the kingdom classification, then an amoeba (single-celled organism) is in the same domain as all animals are. Anyway, are you implying that their is a hierarchy in the intrinsic value of life on this planet? If so, can you ethically support your view. Evolution started in the ocean with the formation of amino acids from the surrounding environment and the gases dissolving into the ocean on earth when it just began to start the process of being able to host life. The single celled organism in the ocean is where the beginning of all life started, so how can you deny it rights as a living being when it was the basis for all life (perhaps not to the degree that animals with a backbone and nervous system should have). What about the preservation of nitrogen-fixing bacteria, a critical process that keeps nitrogen in the atmosphere? All higher organisms are beholden to the organisms that are not as "evolved" because they sustain an environment for the higher organisms to live in. Ask the E. coli bacteria in your intestines. Without this mutualism, humans could not survive at all.
ReplyDeleteHow, specifically, does having a knowledge of animals having complex mental abilities give them instrumental value if they do not have a language? How can you convince those that believe that only humans have instrumental value? What makes us better than the rest, according to those who don't credit animals with equal rights?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you are arguing that animals have some sort of intrinsic value. However, in nature we do observe animals eating other animals so that the former may survive. This (the food chain) is a natural and necessary occurrence. Can't someone make the case that since animals are a food source for other animals they have at least some instrumental value, even to us humans?
ReplyDelete