Moral Status: Dignity for All Species? - Essay Sample

Introduction

The moral status among the different being of the world is an emotive issue that has attracted attention from a wide range of authors seeking to address the principles underlying this motif. As a result, different perspectives have emerged concerning the moral status of humans, infants and animals, which theorist believe should principles same levels of dignity irrespective of their species and status within the society. In the assigned articles, the three authors offer varying perspectives on equality and why they think every human being, despite age or condition, should be treated with the same level of dignity, which also applies in the same proportion to the non-human beings. In their article titled, "All Animals Are Equal," Reagan and Singer (1989) address the attitudes and formed opinions held by people that hinder equality in the manner in which other beings are treated differently from humans. Their discussions broaden to include other non-human beings such as animals and fetuses which are often thought to not hold any moral principle of equality. The motivational theory behind this piece was to advocate for a mental switch within people so that they accord the same degree of respect, attitudes, and practices towards each other and the larger group of beings, which are members of species other than humans, commonly referred to like animals (Reagan & Singer, 1989).

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

Save 25%

The second article, "Why Abortion is Immoral," Marquis (1989) discusses the morality behind abortion and the various choices people have towards this act. The central theme that is discussed relates to the moral worth that an individual receives by virtue of being a person. The piece also departs from the moral implications and addresses the ethics shrouded in abortion. In theoretical terms, the piece is motivated to provide claims that support the immorality in abortion by relying on different philosophies by other theorists who focus on the moral and legal claims to form the basis of the analysis in his piece

The last piece that is highlighted in this paper is the article by Warren, (1973), "On the Moral and Legal status of Abortion." The author addresses two central motifs, the moral status of abortion and the legality of the practice. Warren's piece develops a contrasting perspective regarding women's legal rights to take part in an abortion and the moral worth held by the fetus to be maintained during pregnancy. However, he acknowledges the difficulty in determining a fetus' identity which shapes the central motivation for his analysis. In trying to reconcile the contrasting views.

The Implication of the Study

Other than humans, the studies by the three authors hold some level of significance to the following groups of being as is discussed below

Nonhuman Animals

Animal rights activists have long advanced their campaigns based on the various claims that these beings hold the same level of moral statuses as human beings. Singer (1989), particularly, argues that the same levels of basic principles of equality that are often accorded humans, be extended to animals. However, animals have always been treated with inferiority, being referred to as brute, which according to my evaluation may be interpreted to portray the subordination.

Generally, animals have always been killed indiscriminately for food by humans or even treated in brutal ways the undermine their moral status, portraying them as lesser beings than humans. Looked in at a different angle, the act of killing holds a whole different meaning when humans are the victims. Marquis (1989) describes death as the greatest loss that a person could experience, depriving them of every experience gained, the activities, projects instigated and any leisure that might have constituted their future. According to human beings, therefore, killing would be wrong as it results in a great level of loss to the victims. As such, one might ask why the same level of consciousness is not rendered to animals when the implications are rather similar. Singer (1989) reiterates on every being's equality, and mentions the contemporary right activisms such as those seeking to avert racial prejudice, and eliminating gender bias, equating them to initiatives by the animal rights activists. Singer's piece also cautions humans from their greed who seem to exhibit high propensity to sacrifice animal's interests to satisfy their inconsequential welfares, which nature has provided a wide range of substitutes.

Human Infants

The moral status of human infants attracted varied views from the philosophers. Similar to the discussions above, murder was the central motif in the articles concerning the life fetuses that hang precariously at the hands of their mothers. General theories discount the existence of a fetus as a form of human life, for instance, on the basis that such a being do not genetically below to any sect of humanity which is determined by the membership to a community. (Warren, 1984).

The threat to fetal life is also enhanced by other legal frameworks that put women, under no moral obligation to sustain such lives. However, such decisions tend to be morally justified in cases of extreme pregnancies such as rape and dangers posed to the mother's life, apart from which abortion should remain uncalled for. Still, morality weighs deep on the subject considering the intrinsic value that humans attach to life. Antagonists always point at the circumstance leading into such predicaments and highlight that the inconsiderate actions of women are the reason for many unintended pregnancies that lead to terminations. As such, the innocent being, in the form of the fetus, should not bear the brunt of such catastrophe. In such cases, the supposed parents are morally obligated to retain such pregnancies in a gist of redemption for their carelessness.

With the antagonists shielding the moral principle regarding the wrongness of practicing abortion seeking to determine the scope under which these practices are permissible, they establish that the moral principles of which abortions are carried out are too narrow to be accepted. At the same time, those who support abortion do so under the presumption that campaigns against the act are so broad in scope making them vague. As such, achieving universal right to life for the human infants, the unborn in this case, would always remain unrealizable goal at an individual level based on these divide opinions and the fact that many women would always subscribe to the right to own entity, perceiving that the control over their bodies is their own, hence the freedom do as they wish, which severely limit the rights of the unborn infants, who survival is completely under their mercy.

Severely Mentally Disabled

There is no significant mention of the plight persons living with severe mental illnesses in the three pieces, however, key findings from the articles could help in addressing their issue. Marquis (1989) address the rationality in these agents and equates the standoff that emerges to that which exists between claims advance and against the perpetrators of abortion. In relative terms, it is factual that both the fetus and the severely retarded are unconscious of their wellbeing and would best be exemplified by animals whose irrationality deprives them of similar rights and equality enjoyed by normal human beings (Marquis, 1989). However, should the absurdity that is exhibited in persons with severe mental disability deprive them of universally acclaimed rights such as the right to life? It is factual that animals are yet to command the same rights as humans among their species, still largely killed for food across different societies of humanity. However, if such irrationality is anything to go by, would the same humans be willing to sacrifice fellow humans similarly without raising the moral concerns associated with cannibalism? The answer is negative.

Up this point, it is evident that humans will be inclined to practice some level of moral restraints against harming fellow humans based on socially acclaimed ethical principles, their mental health notwithstanding. As such same attention should be given to these individuals concerning their in other spheres, which does not necessarily entail the protection of their lives but focused on safeguarding their interest-free from any bodily harm as a result of their actions, which mostly occur subconsciously, and hence should not be taken against them.

Most Plausible Moral Theory

In the three articles, the authors offer different perspectives onto what confers moral status, and it is undeniable that each piece provides several pieces of relevant insights guiding the general morality of humans. However, according to my view, Reagan & Singer, (1989) goes a notch further. While the other theorist focuses on a specific element of abortion to raise their claim, the two authors discuss other aspects of the motif giving relevant reference to animals, humans and the unborn infants alike. His work is also meticulously planned to highlight the moral correlation that each of these beings has concerning normal human behavior that is widely accepted as just. The author also addresses various elements of human perceptions and beliefs providing a comprehensive critique of these principles to articulate his general standpoint on what each of these elements portrays in terms of supporting the moral status of every being.

References

Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 183-202. DOI:10.2307/2026961

Reagan, T., & Singer, P. (1989). Animal Rights and Human Obligations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Warren, M. A. (1984). On the Moral and Legal status of Abortion. The Monist, 57(4), 1-9.