ANIMAL RIGHTS

I recently posted this on another forum *. Are there rights (for those human or non-human) in the first place? Maybe, maybe not. If we assume that the categorical imperative is true, at least not morally consistent human rights do not extend to all moral agents. The rights can be derived from the application of the law of the categorical imperative, normative justification derived from reason. Can animals have rights? The animals are worthy of moral consideration on the basis that they may experience. However, rights do not take precedence over the rights of animals, life in extreme scenarios boat as if two lives are in conflict should shape and as a member of the human race more empathy with the animal life nonhuman. In addition, the non-humans can not contribute to the moral universe of the utility on the same stage. But these extreme rescue scenarios are rare, with the exception perhaps of microorganisms, insects, and (optionally) the plant life. The question of suffering in these cases is questionable in any case (that these organizations suffer?). In both cases, the survival of man can not continue without the destruction of these organisms, with the possible exception of insect life (if the destruction of the natural habitat - which is necessary - immediately suspend the possibility of life of these organizations). Coma man and the animal does not suffer from this, but shows a clear preference for the potential of future life, so that their interests must always be taken into account in terms of profit potential contribution to the moral universe. (This is useful because singer Peter preferences in terms of potential profit preferred). Human beings have the same rights, then, but the rule only in terms of preferences utility. * Please note that this is a kind of myth that Kantian ethics is the opposite of utilitarianism, in fact, the categorical imperative is based on the assumption of treating others as ends, This can only be done by the same consideration (eg, placing you in the role of moral agent is to try). The main difference is that the utilitarian can not put people before use, but this charge could apply to Kantian ethics as well. * Arguments to non-human animals are not equal moral value because they lack qualities such as intelligent design, self-awareness and expression of abstract concepts (eg, through the natural language) and are therefore excluded from the community lack of moral integrity, since some non-human animals do not have these qualities (eg, children and adults with mental disabilities ends). Without doubt, this is not necessarily true that some animals do not have these qualities anyway. Some non-human animals do not show such respect for other rights of non-human animals, but for one thing, not every individual species as a whole (in particular, animals many / most animals Pets like dogs and cats show that rape). In addition, non-human animals are required by survival necessity to demonstrate the violation of other rights of non-human animals. It can be shown, therefore, that non-human animals are moral worth effect, but human life is to prevail in extreme situations lifeboat. Agricultural production and meat: some animals, such as birds and fish, would be subject to death by predators in the wild (chicken, fox), anyway. In fact, free-range can indeed provide a much longer and happier life for these animals. So I'm not against the chain of agriculture or consumption of meat from these animals. I am against other farming methods, however, do not treat animals with such decency. I do not know if other animals such as cows, pigs and others, could be under attack in the wild by predators, or if your lifestyle is improved methods of breeding in the wild . The author of this itself is not vegetarian. Blood Sports: clearly not necessary for sports like bullfighting. Pet: comes with the need for livestock, production of fur coats, could simply be the case that ensure nothing remains of the animal is wasted, in fact, more ethical to allow the chain be subjected to biodegradation. On the other hand, allowing this practice also allows the animal to bear its own individual brands of the world. Of course, in reality, the fur industry does not engage in such practices ingenious, but there is no reason to believe that this could never be the case. The scientific experiment: this is a typical case of a boat as if life, as described above. Therefore, in the case of a disastrous human disease, it is legitimate to be vital in animal medicine. Preferably, it should be the case that this animal is not subjected to more pain than is absolutely necessary. This pain can be reduced, for example, first try drugs (non-life) plant life and microscopic clusters of cells, may be the first stage embryos. In fact, this is already the law, and represents the typical scientific conduct. Second, non-human animals should receive anesthesia to minimize pain, provided it does not interfere too much with the scientific research. However, too often, it is true that scientific experimentation provides no or very little benefit to the human race. Such undue experimentation should be banned without cause. ------------------------------------------ The issue of animal rights not respecting simply a matter of lifestyle and respect for the other individual values ​​(normative relativism), if the animals have moral character, then this is a very serious problem that requires legal attention. Human Desire trivial, as the lust of the flesh must be set aside, which would not be used as justification to violate another human being, for example.

No comments:

Post a Comment