Animal Rights: A Debate Worth Considering - Essay Sample

Introduction

Animal Rights Doctrine: Principles and Ethical Dilemmas

Whether non-human animals have rights remains a subject of discussion despite religious teachings on human's obligation over all animals and the interdependence that is required for a sustainable ecosystem. Animal rights activists, however, raise issues regarding the treatment of animals that are worth considering. They advise that human beings desist from doing certain things, no matter the cost to humanity of not doing them. The doctrine of animal rights outlines certain principles. First, it provides that animals should not be used for experiments as doing so subjects such as animals to undue pain and conditions. Two, animal rights require that animals are not bred and killed for food, clothes, or medicine. Kantian ethics considers human harm to animals to be unethical.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Breeding animals for food and raw materials are believed to subject animals to unnecessary pain. Three, animal rights require that animals are not used for hard labor and that selective breeding should not be used in its sole purpose does not benefit the animal. Essentially, supporting animal rights requires that one takes up the position of the animal and only allow treatment that would be favorable to them. Supporting animal rights poses two challenges. First, its consequences are limiting for humanity. Secondly, some of the rights beat common sense. However, Kantian ethics hold that humans have a moral obligation with respect to animals.

Harm to Animals: Kantian Ethics and Moral Obligations

There are multiple reasons why it is wrong to harm animals. According to Kant, certain types of actions, including murder, are absolutely prohibited. Kant's position applies even when such an action would bring more happiness than not performing the act. Some of the ways that humans harm animals are through their use in experiments, breeding for food, and use as raw materials for such things as leather and fur. Using animals for experiment saves the harm that would be inflicted on humans. It also helps to test the effectiveness of medication before they are allowed for humans. Effectively, this route brings happiness to humanity.

The second way that animals are harmed is through subjecting them to hard labor in agriculture and transportation. This approach also relieves humans of hard labor and increases food production. The third way that animals are harmed by humans is through their selective breeding and killing for purposes of raw materials. Humans benefit through warmer clothes, shoes, and other materials that satisfy their needs. If Kant's ethical position is to be considered, then each of the ways that humans harm animals is not justified, irrespective of the benefits that they bring to humans.

Keeping Pets: Moral Considerations and Ethical Concerns

Many people keep pets as a fashionable thing. However, it is not always justified for one to keep a pet, especially if the pet is subjected to conditions that are restrictive and that do not support their natural growth and development. Many animal species have a long history of being human companions. It is morally right to keep such animals because of the mutual gains derived from the relationship. When one offers an animal that has no home, or one that is at risk of harm, it is considered a morally justifiable act. However, there are ethical concerns around keeping pets.

It beats logic to extract a bird from is natural free setting only to keep it in a small cage that restricts its movements, and where it feels lonely. It also feels absurd to remove fish from natural water and hold them in bowls or small tanks where their growth and development is hindered. Keeping large dogs in small flats is also harmful to animals. Besides the environment, the kind of treatment given to a pet determines whether or not it is moral. It is immoral to provide pets with little, too much, or wrong food. Further, not giving the animal proper veterinary care is unethical. Hence, keeping a pet is only ethical if its biological and psychological needs are adequately met.

Kantian ethics demands that before one settles on an action, they consider if such action respects the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for selfish purposes. There are two moral problems that arise in the matter of eating animals. First, it invites the discussion on whether it is principally right for humans to raise and kill animals so they can eat them as meat or fish. Two, one must consider whether killing an animal in a humane manner makes eating the animal right. There are both health and ecological reasons why eating animals is morally wrong.

If we have moral obligations over animals as held by Kant, then we must support animal rights, and killing animals violates their rights. Eating animals compels humans to expose animals to conditions in violation of their rights. First, the animal does not live in its natural condition. It is also not allowed to make its free choices as would be desirable. The animal is not guaranteed freedom from fear and pain. The conditions in which they are exposed require that their health must depend on medical interventions, part of which calls for experimentation.

Hunting and Animal Harm: When Is It Ethical?

Animal hunting, in following up with Kantian ethics, is immoral. There are various factors that back this position. First, humans are supposed to be protectors of animals, which translates to the respect for animal rights. Any act that creates harm on an animal is unethical. However, when animals are hunted with dogs or weapons, they are killed painfully. Such death is not justified and is immoral. Also, animals suffer fear and pain during the chase.

Hunting does not only harm animals that are captured. Even those that manage to escape suffer psychological and physical harm which is unwarranted. When humans hunt, they subject animals to unnecessary cruelty. It is noteworthy that nature has designed its own methods of animal population control, which ought to be protected. The animals that humans hunt are not pests to their crops, neither do they threaten their existence. Hunting does not amount to self-defense. The act also violates the basic interests of the animals so that human satisfaction is met. However, this should not be the case because the primary interest of the animal is to continue to live. Humans, on their part, are interested in the pleasure, sport, and the preservation of cultural activities, issues that are not principle to their existence.

Kantian ethics maintain that a person's action can be considered as either moral or immoral. There are few occasions when harm to an animal may be considered ethical. When the action of harming an animal benefits other animals and not the human, it may be considered moral. For instance, there are environmental and ecological conditions that may call for the control of animals to protect the larger majority. A hunt may be necessary to preserve the integrity or health of an ecosystem through the control of the animals. In such cases, the person takes up their position of protector of the animal.

Unlike other instances of animal harm, this instance is not planned and may take time before recurring. Subjecting an animal to harm or death may also be morally necessary when animal rights endanger the biodiversity because they prevent the breeding of an endangered species that are held in captivity. Animal harm is equally justified when anima rights hinder the reintroduction of locally extinct predators from their restoration into an ecosystem. Hunting may also be allowed to eliminate predators when their existence threatens the prey animals.

Moral Consideration for Animals: Sentience and Behavior

The consideration of non-human animals within the moral spectrum is a modern construct. It lays credence to the animal rights movement. Animal rights activists consider all animals as deserving moral considerations. However, it is noteworthy that any moral consideration of animals introduces human bias in two ways. First, such consideration involves human values in a manner that approaches the subject. Secondly, they involve human value judgments in applying such considerations to particular cases. Animals are sentient organisms that deserve full moral consideration. This consideration is derived from their experience of pain and pleasure. Animals are also aware of their own existence and context.

Animas respond to stimuli. They do not wait for harm to reach them. They protect their young ones from harm in the best way that even humans cannot sometimes. The conduct of animals indicates that they prefer to live than to die, and would go at all lengths to ensure their safety and security. Additionally, the behavior of pets and other animals indicates that animals prefer to have pleasurable lives. These characteristics make humans moral beings. Hence, they should apply to animals.

Morality and Ethics: Determining Right from Wrong

Morality can require humans to substantially change our lifestyle. Ethics is a system of principles, which help us to determine right from wrong. These principles can be used to design optimal living conditions. Being ethical requires that humans take sides on matters of principles. It involves setting standards by which to determine right from wrong. Morality is used to determine the way that society should interact and how resources and the environment should be shared with other humans, non-human animals, and inanimate creatures.

When one is born, they are indoctrinated and influenced by their environments. During their formative years, humans are exempt from the requirement to adhere to certain moral codes unless under the influence of their parents or guardians. However, once they become adults, they are expected to make certain decisions in a manner that validates certain constructs. For instance, one is expected to drive in a certain way, on a particular side of the road, and have respect for other users. When another person accidentally enters the path of someone, they are expected to do all that is possible to protect their lives and that of the other party.

Conclusion

In conclusion, supporting animal rights requires that one takes up the position of the animal and only allow treatment that would be favorable to them. If Kant's ethical position is to be considered, then each of the ways that humans harm animals is not justified, irrespective of the benefits that they bring to humans. Many animal species have a long history of being human companions. It is morally right to keep such animals because of the mutual gains derived from the relationship. Keeping a pet is only ethical if its biological and psychological needs are adequately met.

The doctrine of animal rights outlines certain principles. Animal rights require that animals are not used for hard labor and that selective breeding should not be used in its sole purpose does not benefit the animal. Supporting animal rights poses two challenges. First, its consequences are limiting for humanity. Secondly, some of the rights beat common sense. Certain types of actions, including murder, are absolutely prohibited. Kant's position applies even when such an action would bring more happiness than not performing the act.

If Kant's ethical position is to be considered, then each of the ways that humans harm animals is not justified, irrespective of the benefits that they bring to humans. When one offers an animal that has no home, or one that is at risk of harm, it is considered a morally justifiable act. Keeping a pet is only ethical if its biological and psychological needs are adequately met. Kantian ethics demands that before one settles on an action, they consider if such action respects the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for selfish purposes. Animal harm, in following up with Kantian ethics, is immoral.