Ethical Analysis of News Issue: Animal Rights

Clearly define the ethical issue and provide a brief explanation as to why it is important. (4 marks) To many people, the concept of animal rights is absurd and long drawn. However, animal activism has increased in the recent past with formation of such organizations as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that seek to incorporate ethics when addressing issues related to animals (Joyce 2014, par. 1). Apparently, animal rights activists argue that animals too have rights as is with human beings. Their arguments are anchored in the premise that there should ethical rules that guide our treatment of animals. This implies that human beings have no permission to do some of the things on an animal notwithstanding the situation (Bekoff 2009, p. 14). In fact, the animal rights advocacy groups agitate for legislation of non-negotiable prohibition of animal mistreatment. However, there is a growing concern about the specific rights that animals given the fact that majority of definitions have not actually outlined the rights.

The issue of animal rights is important especially in the wake of public policies that are informed by the arguments of animal ethics. Just recently, Australia and New Zealand had to cut their exports of animals to Pakistan given the brutality and cruelty that the animals suffered when being slaughtered (Joyce 2014, par. 6). For majority of the activists, animals have intrinsic value and should be valued as such. This implies that if countries have such value for animals, it would lead to a paradigm shift in policies as well as conceptualization of animals (Cohen 2001, p. 33). While majority of the activists have been in forefront of agitating for non-negotiable prohibition of animals maltreatment and mistreatment, it is noteworthy that such legislation could have far reaching effects especially on livestock industry. This is recognition of the fact that livestock industry is thriving and constitutes substantial percentage of the national income. As such, animal rights ethics do not only elicit philosophical and ethical issues but also touches on the economy.

Identify facts which are relevant to your analysis of the ethical issue. (5 marks)

Many perspectives have come up especially in regard to the issue of animal rights. In an article relayed on The Canberra Times, De Brito (2014, par. 1) argues that human beings are behaving like ‘Nazis’ especially regarding the plight and ethics towards animals. In other words, he says that human beings have the moral duty not only to protect animal lives but also to alleviate their suffering and mistreatment. He emphasizes the importance of legislators and policy makers to make illegal all actions that may lead to sufferance of animals whatever intentions there may be (De Brito 2014, par. 2). To him, animals have feelings and equally they experience pleasure. As such, human beings should stop treating animals as property and using them as food or for other purposes such as work and research regardless of the good intentions they may purport to have (Bekoff 2009, p. 13). Nonetheless, his arguments have received equal criticism from various sectors including livestock industry. Should human beings be ‘humane’ and the ethical when rearing, slaughtering and using animals?

Some facts are apparent in regard to the issues of animal rights. At the outset, it is agreeable that animals just like humans have the right to this earth. However, human occupy the highest position in the natural order for the virtue of the fact that they can reason (Bekoff 2009, p. 72). Being in control of earth due to the capacity to reason therefore gives human beings the authority to use all earth’s resources for advancement and utility of humanity. With this in mind, it is clear that majority of the issues raised by animal rights activists are yet to convince majority of the population. This leads to the question, ‘to what extent do human beings have duty and responsibility for other animals?’

Moreover, it is important to question the authority of animal ethics arguments given the fact that majority of animals reared by human beings are for food. In fact, over 75% of world’s population consumes meat, others wear leather shoes while others use animals for work or for gaming purposes (Cohen 2001, p. 45). This implies that while there is a legitimate concern about the rights possessed by animals, many societies are yet to embrace that basic fact. Besides, animal rights advocacy has been marred with controversy. In fact, Minister of Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, argues that animal rights groups such as PETA have little if any concern of the animals (Joyce 2014, par. 1). To him, the group’s advocacy does not advance a case for animals but seeks to demonize wool industry by arguing that citizens should not wear woolen clothes. As elucidated by Cohen (2001, p. 43), the groups have no real concern for animals but are just masquerading as activists to advance a specific agenda outside the context of animal rights. While ethics associated with animal rights are many and diverse, many philosopher have argued for and against animal rights. Many of them are convinced on the ability of the human beings to act rationally when faced with such ethical dilemmas like, eat or not eat meat, dress in woolen/leather clothes or not, etc. (Joyce 2014, par. 5)

Analyze the ethical issue using act utilitarianism, identifying all relevant consequences. Compare negative versus positive consequences and assess whether net utility will rise or fall as a result of the ethical act being examined. (8 marks)

Various Utilitarian theorists argue that every animal is equal to any other. The rationale is that virtually all animals have the tendency to experience pain as well feel pleasure. According to this theory, human beings ought to act in a way that reduces pain and increases pleasure (Bekoff 2009, p. 31). In other words, human beings across all societies will take an action that will alleviate their pain and suffering and increases their pleasure. In regard to animal rights, Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher argues that since animals can experience pain and pleasure, just like children do, they should have inherent rights and should have equal status as human beings (Bekoff 2009, p. 31). To him, human beings are not superior to animals; they are all equal. Many utilitarian theorists hold that the quality of pain and pleasure should be quantifiable (Pickering & Norman1998, p. 528). This apparently lacks in the arguments presented forth by the animal rights activists.

According to the theorists, the consequence of a decision or action should have higher positive consequences than the negative consequences, thus, increasing the pleasure derived by the actor. In the context of animal rights activists, the decision to accord animals some rights could have various consequences (Pickering & Norman1998, p. 541). From the face value, it would imply that animal rights could lead to animal conservation and sustainability of specific species that might be extinct. This will lead to increased pleasure derived by future generations when they get to see some of the species that would be extinct. Second, animal ethics could reduce the variety of food for many societies. Given the fact that animal rights activists are opposed to any form of slaughtering animals for food, many countries and societies will have constrained food (Pickering & Norman1998, p. 529). For instance, in societies where pastoralism is more of a norm than an exception, it would imply that they diversify their cuisine while adapting to new culture. This might not necessarily yield positive consequences for the societies. The activism could also yield negative results for the economy. In Australia, many large scale farmers and livestock keepers could be deprived of their sources of income were slaughtering animals become illegal in the premise of animal rights (Bekoff 2009, p. 56). These are just but few of many consequences that could result from animal ethics. As such, acting in way that seeks to enshrine animal rights could be detrimental to the human race. This implies that utilitarianism would not allow animal rights to become a part of legislation due to the fact that it would yield more pain than pleasure. Acting in such way would be irrational and does not yield greatest utility for humanity (Bekoff 2009, p. 71).

Apply Kant’s categorical imperative by defining the rule that authorizes the act central to the ethical issue you have chosen. Discuss whether this rule can be applied universally. (8 marks)

Although Kantian ethics are opposed to causing senseless suffering to animals, his arguments were anchored in the fact that animals have no rights at all (Scott 2002, p. 18). Kant’s Categorical Imperative was premised in the argument that we should treat all human beings equally as we treat ourselves and should not use human beings as a means to achieve our ends (Scott 2002, p. 20). In other words, human beings should respect others because they have autonomy which allows them to pursue their happiness and ends. Kantian ethics places huge emphasis on autonomy due to the fact that majority of people have the freedom to act freely – free will (Scott 2002, p. 23). Humans are autonomous because they are self-conscious and that their actions are guided by reason. To the contrary, animals are not autonomous since they have no reason and consequently, animals can be used by man as means to achieve their ends. Kantian ethics advances that human being is the end.

Human beings have no direct moral duty and responsibility towards animals. This insinuates that human beings have no duty to protect, fosters and facilitate animals to achieve their ends. This is contradictory to the animal rights activism that seeks to place duty of animal welfare on human beings. However, Categorical Imperative contends that pointless animal suffering perpetuated by human beings may also prompt them to be cruel to human beings. Thus, human beings have an indirect duty to foster the welfare of animals regardless of their conviction. For instance, his arguments are that human beings who do not respect animal rights may also become reluctant to respect human rights. It is therefore and indirect duty of human beings to treat animals in a humane way. The rationale is that by so acting, human beings advances their self-interests (Scott 2002, p. 23). It is imperative to mention that human beings are not bound by any law to foster the welfare of animals but rather, their own welfare. This implies that human beings, under Kantian ethics, can be cruel to animals if it suits their interests.

In the news article, De Brito (2014, par. 3) argues that human beings are behaving like Nazis in their reluctance to uphold animal rights. This contradicts the argument anchored in Kantian ethics that human beings can be cruel to animals by slaughtering them for food, using them as a mode of transport, using their products for clothing, for their own interests (Pickering & Norman1998, p. 529). In fact, if the advocacy for animal rights increases harm to human beings, it is only reasonable to be cruel to animals and shun all call for animal rights. Besides, using animals for experiments has positive consequences that outweigh the negative consequences of animal suffering. To that end, human beings have no direct duty to animals and that calls for animal rights are not advocated by Categorical Imperative.

Conclusion: Comparison

Although Immanuel Kant was an opponent of utilitarianism, it is clear that his arguments are in line with theories advanced by utilitarianism especially in regard to animal rights. First, the two philosophical standpoints underscore the superiority of human beings over animals (Scott 2002, p. 26). Utilitarianism proposes that an individual should take the cause of action that has more positive outcomes than the negative outcomes. This implies that even if a person is cruel to animals and seem to derive more pleasure in doing so, he/she should go ahead and cause animal sufferance. Kantian arguments on the other hand are anchored in the belief that human beings are solely engaged in advancing their self-interests implying that if by being cruel to animals will advance the interests of humanity, it would be okay (Cohen 2001, p. 71).

From the above analysis of ethics on animal rights, it is apparent that giving animals some rights and protecting them from human beings would be detrimental to human society. As such, utilitarian theorists would decline to recognize animal rights due to the fact that they stand to experience negative consequences more than they stand to experience positive outcomes (Pickering & Norman1998, p. 530). Animal ethics would lead to social disorganization which ultimately affect economy and other societal institutions. On the other hand, Kantian theory articulates that animals have no rights due to their inability to reason (Scott 2002, p. 27). As such, they are not autonomous and independent. It is therefore upon man to ensure that all decisions that partaken by any country or society serves the interests of human beings. If by being cruel, man gets food, transport, clothes and leisure, it is reasonable to be cruel to animals. Overall, both theories seem to converge and agree that animals’ interests are secondary to human beings. Man should use animals as mere means to their ends.

References

Bekoff, M 2009, The Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, Thomson Learning, South Melbourne.

Cohen, C 2001, ‘The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research’, The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 315, no. 1, pp. 865-70.

De Brito, S 2014, ‘We are all Nazis when it comes to animal rights’, The Canberra Times, 27 April, p. 3

Joyce, B 2014, ‘Australian wool industry does not deserve to be tarred by PETA smears’, The Canberra Times, 18 July, p. 1.

Pickering, F & Norman, R 1998, ‘Some Animals are More Equal than Others’, Philosophy, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 507-27.

Scott, W 2002, ‘Indirect Duties to Animals’, The Journal of Value Inquiry, vol. 36, no, 5, pp. 17-27.