"It’s Time to Re-evaluate our Relationship with Animals"

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