What duties, if any, do we have to non-human animals Essay

What duties, if any, do we fetch to non-human animals - Essay Example1 In examining theories by singer, McMahan, Warnock, Spira and Benson regarding the eating of non-human animals, consideration will alike be given to the impact this may constitute on moral arguments regarding duty in vivisection, and industries such(prenominal) as cosmetics, detergents and pharmaceuticals. Peter Singer believes chimpanzees and apes, should be granted the right to life, to liberty and to protection from torture,2 because they have autonomy like military man. Singers term speciesists is used for people who regard human beings as intrinsically more valuable than members of other(a) species.3 Singer purports to believe in equality betwixt species, but Benson argues this is false because of the relationships with other individuals which argon inseparable from belonging to the same species.4 Singer contradictiously suggests that chimps and apes have a greater level of consiousness, compared to othe r non-human animals. In an article and the book Ethics into Action, Singer discusses hydrogen Spira who campaigned to reduce animal low related to the Draize and LD50 tests. Spiras advertising campaign was criticized for using a Beagle to contact an emotive response it was suggested if a rodent appeared in the advert people would non have been so outraged. Spira pointed to the importance of not how popular is an animal, but can it tell the difference between pain and entertainment?5 Singer discusses Kants work and states that we find moral worth only when duty is through for dutys sake.6 What is meant by this relates to the advertising, in that if people do their duty out of liberality or shame, they wouldnt be doing their duty for the sake of believing and feeling it to be true. Gary L. Francione criticises Peter Singers work, suggesting that whilst it contains an element of reform for animal-welfare, it makes people feel better about animal uses, but does not actually achiev e its proper aim of protecting animals.7 Francione argues for full abolition of animal use, claiming that because animals are sentient beings this should enable them to have full moral and legal rights. Professor of Philosophy, Jeff McMahan, discusses animals raised in hefty conditions, then killed humanely, for human consumption and terms this benign carnivorism.8 McMahan states the main effrontery of benign carnivorisms moral philosophical argument, is that its preferable animals live in a contented manner, with no suffering (up until their humane death), than to not have existed at all. Mary Warnock claims animals should be used for the sake of human society,9 she lists activities such as horse riding sledging the food and clothing they provide. This argument is favourable to those wishing to eliminate meat, though McMahan points out the illogical flaw that there are no individuals who never exist.10 A comparative sense of well-being is made between non-human animals and human s. Whilst non-human animals can appear to show emotion other aspects of human life such as success, artistic endeavours, wisdom, meaningful connections to others, the ability to think rationally and range of beauty arent always as easy to perceive in non-human animals. McMahan suggests that non-human animals lack a self-awareness for the future, claiming that they do nothave desires or intentions or ambitionsthat would be frustrated by death,11 thus fashioning it easier to justify killing them. McMahans argument makes interesting comparison to humans but his key premise throughout is that animals do not have the same rights as humans they have lesser rights humans constantly place a higher value on human life. If non-human animals were seen to have a