There are many different arguments as to what degree we should value the lives of animals and what moral status they have. By moral status, I mean, how much moral consideration should be awarded to them. How much do their needs matter? What obligations do we have as humans to make sure their needs are fulfilled? (I’m not philosopher, so my interpretation of moral status is not a reliable definition.) Most of us will adopt an argument that confirms beliefs that we already had, which makes me wonder what the point of debating really is? But still, it is actually possible to change beliefs if we truthfully and thoughtfully tackle a problem. So let me continue with the issue at hand: animal moral status.
It is argued or believed that animals have little or no moral status because they are less intelligent and are not capable of leading the rich lives of humans, they don’t have the same hopes and dreams as humans, won’t be “missed” when they pass on, they are not spiritual beings, possessing no soul, etc. I will briefly argue against all of these statements. Firstly there are some humans who are born significantly less intelligent than others (in fact we are all born rather silly and mentally undeveloped) but noone would claim (these days) that their lives are not important and that we should just use, abuse and/or kill them! Secondly though animals may not have the same long-term hopes and ambitions that we do, they do appear to experience happiness and suffering. We all know the eagre anticipation that dogs show when we take them for a walk, also dogs long for their owners while away. Some animals like elephants show distress when members of their family die and many mother animals will sacrifice their lives to protect their offspring. As for not being spritual, how do we know that animals or humans have souls? I don’t believe that the soul is necessary to explain human existence, yet I still believe that the lives of human beings are meaningful. So to me, this assertion is not necessary for the debate either.
Whatever of the above beliefs you may have, it is actually not important in the question of: do animals have moral status? What we must ask ourselves is, “Can they suffer?”. Indeed most animals higher than the ameoba (and possibly insects and worms) certainly can and anyone who has lived near or with an animal will know this. This is all we require as a valid justification to consider the needs of animals to prevent their unncessary suffering.
3 comments:
its funny. i dont know anybody who wouldnt be shocked if he saw a pet beaten or deliberately harmend, but this is exactly what they are endorsing (implicitly) when they eat meat, or deny that animals have rights.
Yes, it is a strange contradiction. I suppose we all hold contradictory beliefs. We need to try identify them and work towards a consistent set of beliefs.
With meat-eating, it's easy to ignore the cruelty of some farming practices, as we don't see it first-hand.
Kate are you a vegetarian?
I've been a vegetarian for years, my parents were cool about it so it was easy, besides, i love vegies!
i suppose it even works that way with humans, nobody gets all that worked up about genocide, like in rwanda. out of sight out of mind. but that doesnt make it ok.
Post a Comment