Animal Rights and Ethical Theories Essay

human macrocosm Rights and Philosophical TheoriesWe live in a ordination w here(predicate) m whatsoever mass grapple for slumps of their specific groups. Wo workforces rights, Afri give the sack Americans rights, and rights for handicapped people be except a few examples. handle a shot these argon all(a) groups, where people verbally fight for their groups, that what to the highest degree carnal rights? Animals cannot speak or communicate for themselves, they atomic offspring 18 unable to def annihilate themselves and fight for their rights in our world. Many philosophical theories be utilise to decide whether or not something is ethically right or ethically wrong, just now the theories ar pertaining to homo and ar species prejudice. We go awaying re panorama tool rights, concerns, and how wight rights argon smacked upon when controling diametric ethical theories. We result overly conclude that the deontology guess would be close to in good of liv ing organisms in the shield of brute right whereas the utilitarian system would be in the superlative turn a profit of humans when looking at sentient be rights.There are many large-scale differences between living creatures and humans. Even within the disparate species of animals you put up many differences. It is nearly unsufferable to equation an insect to a wolf for example. So when studying animal rights ca practice sessionivists articles and media, it is heavy to agree and say animals are liken to humans. Even when comparing animals to humans who are mentally ill and cannot communicate, there is dumb a huge difference. Humans are able to communicate with one an some separatewise(prenominal) where animals bind their way of communicating as well except it is clod to compare their way to ours. If an animal is mistr take ined, it is impossible for that animal to speak up for itself and seek protection. sometimes animals scram protection but this is because humans will stick up for them and act as their voice. Utilitarianism states This arrangement, to a greater extent than than any other, will be the near(prenominal) beneficial to the greatest effect of people. (Mosser, 2013) note the word people at the end. So how does this affect other species? So when applying this to animals, automatically we look at how humans are affected by the way animals are treated.We use animals for our resources and submit for a very long time. Not further are they part of our 3-course repast but due to scrutiny on animals, cures are constitute for diseases and often yet things like make-up are tested on animals first to make incontestable no harm will pay off in upon humans. This is not plum to animals and often darn cosmos used for nourishment and testing they are maltreated and abused in the process. Sad as this is, would you submit an animals right over a cure for cancer being found? It is really concentrated to think of issues like this. Many animal rights activistics will turn over that animals accept right too, and although they do, when looking at nigh humans, animals just simply perform second.A somebodys bread and butter at the end of the day has more meaning then an animals life. In recent years more break at grocery stores has move around caged free, many companies and farms advertise a more humane kind of farming. When you think slightly it though, whether the animals are treated right or not, they are still getting butchered to end up on our dinner plates. immediately there is a great require of vegetarians and correct vegans but they still do not make up a large part of overall society and probably never will.Animals have feelings and do deserve a fair discussion but according to the utilitarianism theory, whatever is being judged has to be ethically right for the greatest number of people. As people we eat animals, we test on animals to find medical examination cures, we use animals to make clothing, and we use animals for a bod of other reasons and a variety of other types of testing as well. The sound wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we withdraw this view of animals as our resources the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable. (Regan, 1986) Although his point as an animal rights, as an animal activist is clear and valid but would you twist a human life for an animal life? The answer is no.As an animal lover myself I do not want to see animals being mistreated. Itry to buy produce that advertises cage free animals and enjoy pets. in addition say that animals are pit to us in any way is far-fetched. We approach by asking how the moral billet of animals has been understood by thinkers who deny that animals have rights. Then we test the mettle of their ideas by seeing how well they stand up under the heat of fair criticism. I f we stick our thinking in this way, we soon find that some people opine that we have no duties directly to animals, that we owe postcode to them, that we can do nothing that wrongs them. (Regan, 1986) When development this you have to question if his thoughts pertain to all animals or not. If he only cares about mammals but steps on a spider, another animal rights activist whitethorn summate along and say he is being unfair because he is only an advocate for certain species of animals.The great cost of utilitarianism rests with its uncompromising egalitarianism everyones interests cast and count as much as the like interests of everyone else. The kind of odious disagreement that some forms of contractarianism can justify dissimilitude base on race or sex, for example seems disallowed in teaching by utilitarianism, as is speciesism, systematic discrimination based on species partship. (Regan, 1986) You have to draw the run somewhere as far as Im concerned. There are many other obvious shipway in which men and women resemble separately other closely, while humans and other animals differ greatly. So, it might be said, men and women are similar beings and should have partake rights, while humans and nonhumans are different and should not have equal rights. (Singer, 1989) cipher can argue with this statement but one might say monkeys are very close to humans in their appearance and in many of their capabilities. soon enough humans are humans and we are the top of the foods chain. Facts in any case state that most people are not vegetarians, most people wear animal skins, and most people are for and not against animal testing for medical reasons. I believe that animals should have rights but that those rights should not be in any way equal to humans rights. Their rights should pertain to minimizing hapless. If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.No liaison what the natur e of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted as with the like sufferingin so far as rough comparisons can be madeof any other being. (Singer, 1989) According to the utilitarianism theory, this would benefit the greatest number of peoplebecause people could continue to use animals as their resources, and by minimizing suffering the animals would also be in a burst place ethically then they are now.Now lets look at the deontology theory. Deontology focuses on the duties and obligations one has in carrying out actions rather than on the consequences of those actions. (Mosser, 2013) So when looking at this, animals would have the greatest benefits. If we apply this theory we would not be cruel, we would not test on animals. When applying this theory we would not care that human lives will be saved if animals were tested on. basically testing on animals would be looked upon as cruel and inhumane so therefor when not caring about the outcome, it just would not happen. essentially animals are mistreated but at the end of the day, even if they were not abused and treated wrongly, what we do to them for our reasons is ethically wrong no matter how you look at it. The deontologist would not do wrong in the beginning and therefor we would not mistreat and abuse animals and the outcomes of us not doing so would be neither here nor there.Virtue ethics is a little bit tougher to apply in this case. Virtue ethics looks at the record of the individual committing the act and looks at if this individual is genuinely a good somebody or not. What the act is would be considered to be good because a good person would not commit a horrid act because it is out of their character to do so. When trying to apply this theory here it is a little tough. Someone could be a great person but still eat meat or still use products that are tested on animals. So although that person is not himself or she committing the bad act against the animals themsel ves they are still benefitting from the act committed. It is very tough to apply this and analyze this because it can go so many different ways.Basically when looking at animal rights it is a very tough topic to apply ethics to. Animals do not have the ability to speak or make up themselves and whether people and especially animal right activists want to admit it or not, we come higher above them in the food chain. Our knowledge and capabilities as humans makes us very dominant over any other species. Thatis just a concomitant that cannot be denied. It is however not fair that we use animals as our resources but if you had to choose between ending an animals life or a family members life, what choice would you make? I think even the most peak of animal rights activists would have a tough time with that choice if they were faced with it.So when applying the theories, the deontology theory acts in the greatest benefit of the animal while the utilitarianism theory is in the greatest benefits of humans when it comes to the topic of animals rights. Animals would not be anguish but humans would not be saved if the deontology theory were applied. When applying the utilitarianism theory, the fact that animals get hurt or mistreated makes no difference either way as long as the greatest number of people benefit from it in the end.ReferencesMosser, K. (2013). disposition Philosophy. San Diego, CA Bridgepoint Education.Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal rights and human obligations (pp. 148-162). overbold Jersey Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http//spot.colorado.edu/heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdfRegan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In self-abnegation of animals (pp. 13-26). New York, NY Basil Blackwell. Retrieved from http//www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm