There are many historical events
that have been compared to speciesism like racism and women’s rights.
Speciesism is a very common term that is used to describe the differences of
treatment based on species. In history,
race or biological differences justified higher moral consideration. Women were
considered less intelligent due to biological differences. This occurred again
with African Americans being labeled as property because of their race. The
animal rights movement is somewhat similar to these two other events. Even
though animals do not have the same rights as the African Americans and women
have now, they still gained some rights after these movements. The discussion
about the way humans treat animals is very common because everybody differs in
how they view the moral standing of an animal.
Speciesism was a term popularized
by Richard Ryder and it is said to describe the hierarchy that was created over
time, which is ranked by prejudice. Over the years there have been several
different hierarchies created and most rank animals in the lower levels.
Aristotle created the natural hierarchy that ranked humans on top followed by
animals then plants. In this example, people believed that animals existed
solely to be useful to humans. There were many opinions expressed about how to
treat animals. After organizations coming together to protest for animal
rights, a lot of philosophers and scientists came out with different ways of
viewing animals. Nowadays like the video It's
time to re-evaluate our relationship with animals: Lesli Bisgould at TEDxUofT, show
that it is not surprising that humans feel compassion for pets or animals in
general. However until today there are still three main ways that people treat
animals, which are referred to as animal ethical theories. These theories consist
of indirect, direct but equal, and moral equality treatment.
Immanuel Kant, a German
philosopher, believed that animals can feel, but are not conscious beings. He
promoted good human behaviors, not to protect animals, but because he believed
cruelty leads to more cruelty. This was an example of indirect theories because
the main purpose of treating animals respectfully was to compare it to
respecting another human. This theory was not for the animals’ sake, but coincidently
sets some standards for the treatment of animals. With this view, people believed
that humans should not harm each other’s property, not offend people who love
animals, and once again not cause cruelty to animals because it leads to
cruelty to other people. All these reasons to respect animals were not implied
to protect animals. I believe that this theory does not put enough emphasis on
the rights of animals. I think that it does not consider the fact that animals
can feel and should have some regulations of how they are treated. In the same
video of Lesli Bisgould, she states that humans prohibit unnecessary suffering
of animals, but it does not prohibit necessary suffering. I believe that this
further shows that this theory is more beneficial towards humans than the
animal itself. Although Lesli was speaking on how the laws about animal
treatment were not being enforced enough, I believe that what she was trying to
say is that some laws can be interpreted in different ways. I think that in
some cases these laws can exist more for the protection of a human rather than
the animal itself.
Direct theories were based on the idea that
animals deserve some moral standing but not more than humans because animals do
not display moral reciprocity. This theory has the opposite purpose of the
indirect theory since it is based around the idea that it is wrong to harm an
animal for the animal’s own sake. I believe that this theory is supported by
laws like the Animal Welfare Act. These laws give regulations on the treatment
of research animals, shelter animals, and much more. In my opinion this theory
makes the most sense. It takes into consideration the feelings of the animals
and gives them the rights that they need. Peter Singer is utilitarianism that
believes animals should not have equal rights as humans, but equal
consideration. He believes there should not be equal treatment because humans
and other animals have different needs. His point was that we should
consider
those differences and treat them accordingly. A comparison that was made was
between children ad animals. Children deserve equal consideration as well. For
example, adults do not harm children because they feel the same pain and suffering
as them, however they do not have the same rights or capabilities as an adult.
This is the same idea that is brought up with the treatment of animals. I believe
that this is the ideal way we should think about, when setting regulations on
the treatment of animals.
The third way people view the
standing of animals has equal moral status as humans. This theory denies the
special qualities that other theories give to humans. I believe that this
theory is believed by extremists. Some people like Gary Francione, who believes
that humans should not be using animals in any type of way. This man worked
with PETA for a long time and he left the organization because he felt PETA was
not doing enough to stop animal use. As it is stated on their website, this
organization focuses on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories,
and in the entertainment industry. They also work on a variety of other issues,
including the cruel kil
ling of beavers, birds, and other “pests” as well as
cruelty to domesticated animals. Their strategies to protest have been known to
be extreme. One example is when the PETA workers covered themselves in blood
and protested against fur clothing. I believe this theory does not consider
that humans have more capabilities than animals do.
In Lesli Bisgould’s speech, she states that
there are many federal and local laws that say that animals should be treated
humanely, but those laws are useless. In my opinion, this statement is somewhat
true. I do agree that some animals are still suffering and that some facilities
are not humanely treating animals. There will always be a widespread of opinion
on how animals should be treated, but in reality humans know that animals have
feelings. I believe that humans should take it into consideration when we form
a relationship with an animal, regardless if the animals is used in research or
kept as a pet. Animals should not suffer because humans believe it is okay. Animals
should have some rights to avoid animal abuse, neglect, and situations like that.
http://lucyram9517.blogspot.com/2015/09/its-time-to-re-evaluate-our.html