Ethical Treatment of the Animals
Introduction
Ethics refers to formal or informal expectations of what should and should not be accepted in the society (Pojman & Fieser, 2009). Ethics is an important element in every social group. There are many ethical issues with the human society. One of these issues is how we treat our animals. There has been conflicting interest on how animal should be treated. On one hand there are those who argue that animals are there to provide utility to human and this group use animals for various purposes such as; for food, entertainment, transport and power among many other uses. On the other hand there those who believe that animals have rights which should be respected. The later group do not associate themselves with anything that has caused suffering to animals such as eating meat or wearing garments made out of animal products. Although these two cases are on the extreme, they present a real dilemma on how animals should be treated. This paper will evaluate the issue of ethical treatment of animal and try to solve this issue using the virtue ethics theory. According to this theory, whether an act performed on an animal is ethical or not will not depend on the actions or the consequences of the action but the kind of person you are.
Ethical Dilemma in the Issue of Treatment Animal Treatment
There have always been controversies among members of the society on how animals should be treated. There are people who argue that animals have a moral status equal to that of human being and therefore they should be accorded the same status and respect as humans. There are also those who believe that animals are just animals and should not be accorded any moral status. Though people may argue that these are two extreme cases, recent years have seen an increased population of people who believe that animals should be accorded rights. There are activists and movements that argue that deprived of legal protection, animals have become defenseless against exploitation and abuse by humans (Mosser, 2010). Through the Animal Bill of Rights, the Animal Legal Defense Fund is working to show Congress a groundswell of support for legislation that protects animals and recognizes that, like all sentient beings, animals are entitled to basic legal rights in our society. The animal right is basically that humans do not have the right to use animals for their own gain at all—on the farm, in entertainment or in the wild (Mosser, 2010).
The animal welfare viewpoint advocates for restraining or preventing cruel treatment of animals. According to the animal welfare viewpoint, human use of animals is acceptable if animal suffering is avoidable. In practice however it is not always that simple to make this difference between animal rights and animal welfare positions. In many cases, organizations or individuals who portray themselves as animal rights advocates may support animal welfare efforts as an intermediate step on the path to a true animal rights solution (Mosser, 2010). While the perspectives differ, both involve a concern for the suffering of others. Different advocacies work at the federal and state levels supports legislation that recognizes animals as an important part of our social order and ensures that they are treated as humanely as possible. American Humane Association also engages in grassroots outreach efforts to mobilize communities to become an outspoken voice for better laws, and we keep constituents notified of pending animal welfare legislation and enable them to advocate for animals with federal and state-specific Action Alert.
There is a group on the side that argues that humans have no moral obligations towards animals and that animals do not have rights. This group argues that animals should provide utility to human even it means having them experience horrible suffering. According to this group, animals are used for various purposes; they provide food for the meat factories and grocery stores, wool, fur and hide for the textile and leather product, for cosmetics and pharmaceutical industry (Machan, 2000). Anti-animal right proponents argue that the animal industry is a multi-billion dollar industry that creates employment to million, provide food and other products to millions of people as well. In most cases deriving this utility from the animals involve some form of torture. For example an animal must be slaughtered in order to get the meat or hide. This group raises questions on whether these benefits to humans should be abandoned so that rights could be accorded to humans.
Philosophers have grouped the moral consideration of animals in to three schools of thoughts; indirect theory, direct but unequal theory and moral equality theories (Wilson, 2010). Indirect theories suggest that animals have no moral status and therefore should not be according equal status with human (Wilson, 2010). Advocates of this theory believe that animals should be there to derive utility to human and elevating these animals to the moral status of human beings undermines the morality of humans. Supporters of this school of thought argue that animals have low ability to reason and act rationally and therefore should be considered amoral and moral. These philosophers site examples such as mating and feeding habits as major differentiating factors between animals and humans. Though proponent of this theory do not advocate for intentional harming of animals they argue that this animals can not be of the same status with humans. This group supports various treatments of animals such as slaughtering for meat, hide or other products and other uses such as using animals for transportation and entertainment.
There is the second school of though referred to as the direct but unequal theory. Proponents of this school of thought accord animals some morals status but which is not equal to that of human being (Wilson, 2010). This group argues that though animals have the right to fair treatment from human they lack the capability to reciprocate the same actions. Unlike human beings who have higher capability to act rationally and to reason, animal may perform acts irrational act against other animals or on human beings. This denies them from being placed in the same status as humans. This school of thought has it that, whenever the interest of human beings and that of animals conflict, the interest of human being take precedent because they are the being with the highest moral capabilities. It is on this basis that this school of though permits slaughter of animals for food and other purposes and utilization of animal for activities such as transport and work power.
The third school of thought is the direct or moral equality theory. Proponents of this theory accord animals the same moral status as human beings (Wilson, 2010). This theory presents that animals despite the inferior rationalization ability as compared to that of human, they should be accorded the same rights as humans. Proponents of this school of thought go to extreme to ensure actions that cause harm to animals are stopped. This people do not eat meat, wear garments made out of animal products or tolerate recreational activities where animals are involved. The differences between the pro- animal rights and the ant-animals rights groups are so deep and their arguments also make sense that it become difficult to determine what the ethical position should be.
Using Virtue Theory to Solve the Dilemma
Virtue theory states that an individual cannot separate his actions from his personality (Audi, 2010). Good actions are as a result of an individual good character while bad actions are as a result of bad characters. According tom this to this theory before we perform any actions we must examine our deeds based on our values and beliefs. This theory does allow reliance on intuition, religion, magic or any other element apart from the moral values of the individual (Audi, 2010). Therefore according to virtue theory, the ethics of the actions of an individual against an animal will be determined by the personality of the individuals. This is unlike the utilitarian theory which emphasizes on the end rather than the means; this theory does not lay emphasis on either the end or the means but the individual performing the action. While the utilitarian theory would support torturing of animals as long as the result would be beneficial to humans, virtue theory will support the fair and just treatment of animals irregardless of the means or the outcome involved (Audi, 2010). According to this theory, a person will treat animal accorded to what his or her personality dictates.
The virtue theory has identified some virtues that are considered as virtuous and which may determine whether an action is ethical or not. One of these virtues is autonomy. Autonomy is the degree in which a person is dependent on other to make decisions (Audi, 2010). When one has a higher degree of autonomy he or she is considered to be more virtuous that those with a lower degree. This theory implies that if a person commit an act towards an animal from an autonomous decision, this action will be considered ethical. Another virtuous trait is equality. An individual’s personality which supports the equal treatment of all is considered more ethical (Audi, 2010)l. Such a person is more likely to support the fare and morals treatment of animals than a person whose personality does not support the equal treatment.
Another moral virtue that has been emphasized by the virtue theory is finality. This means that your moral values override other beliefs such as religious, political and economic beliefs (Audi, 2010). This value support fair treatment off animal as it will overrule the justification of animal torture by use of economic and social reasons. Another virtue emphasized by the theory is the non- maleficence. This means that an individual’s actions are clear of any ill-intentions. This means that if a person commits an act towards an animal without any ill-intention then his actions are ethical. Other virtues include; beneficence, justice, respect, tolerance and universality. Justice means that a person is interested in fair treatment of all. Respect means that a person considers the moral rights of other while universality means basing once moral on values that are acceptable to a majority of people.
Relativism and Treatment of animal
Relativism is an approach that nothing has an absolute truth (Baghramian, 2004). According to this theory, what is true or right is always relative and subject to our individual perceptions. This theory supports all points of view and states that as long as there is a justification for the views the views should not be dismissed. Using this theory to determine ethics in the treatment of animal, virtual all actions against animals will be ethical. This is because every individual will have his or her own justification of how he or she treats animals.
Emotivism and Treatment of Animal
Emotivism is a thinking approach, developed in moral philosophy, where actions of an individual are not based on facts but emotional attitude (Satris, 1987). People rely on this thinking approach base their action of their feeling and emotions rather than reason or rational facts. Under this approach actions are deeply entrench into a person’s emotions and there is little room for negotiation or reason (Satris, 1987). This may be a positive or negative approach to the welfare of animal. Animal right supporters who use this method of thinking will do everything possible to protect the rights of animal and little can hold them back. On the hand, if some who does not support animal rights develop such a thinking approach it would become difficult to change the actions of such an individual.
Ethical egoism
Ethical egoism is moral philosophy that supports the position that, any action that supports self interest is ethical (Pojman & Fieser, 2009). This philosophy propagated the idea that as long as an action advances the interests of the responsible individual that action must be considered as ethical. This school of thought may be negative to the well fare of animals and may encourage unfair treatment of animals. In most cases there is usually a conflict between the interest of humans and that of animals. For example, an animal wants to live while human would like meat, or human want to be entertained while an animal require fair treatment and freedom from torture. This philosophy will choose human interest over the need to protect the right of animals whenever such cases arise. This philosophy allows for the moral rights and interest of other beings to be overlooked as long as the action of violet other being right propagated the self interest of the given individual.
Conclusion
Ethics is a moral code that dictates what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the society. Ethics is important in maintaining a peaceful coexistence among beings existing in a given society. The animal/ human relationship is one of the relationships that has proved very difficult to have in existence a set of ethics that governed the actions of these two being towards one another. Various views have existed on how animals should be treated and these views are very diverse. There those who think that animals are amoral and therefore do not have any right while there are those who feel that animals should be respected and be treated as equal to humans. This paper has attempted to solve this dilemma using the virtue ethics theory. According to the theory ethics in the treatment of animal is determined by the personality of the individual.
References
Audi R.(2010). Virtue Ethics as a Resource in Business. May 28, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.pdcnet.org/pdfs/forthcoming/BEQMS-636.pdf
Baghramian M. (2004). Relativism. USA. Routledge Publishers
Pojman L. & Fieser J. (2009). Ethics Discovering Right and Wrong. Wadsword Publishers
Machan T. R. (2000). Revisiting Animals Rights. May 28, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ag-tierethik.de/blog/tibor_machan_revisiting_animal_rights.pdf
Mosser, K. (2010). Constellation. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUSOC120.10.2/sections/copyright
Satris S. (1987). Ethical Emotivism. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
Wilson S (2010). Animal and Ethics. University of California. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
