Animal Rights
Animal rights is a very fragile topic. Opposing sides have strong reasons
to stand for either of their believes, leading to many ethical questions.
One of the major questions is who is right and who is wrong? There is no
one right answer, but instead million of them based upon our own individual
opinion, and the opinions are formed on how we feel about the facts. Animal
research, test, and use has taken humanity a long way, with its advances in
medicine and as a major source of food, but it is not morally correct to
abuse, test, use, and ultimately kill the animals unnecessarily, especially
for our comforts, luxuries, and greed.
Many benefits have been obtained through animals, mostly in the field of
Medicine. The medical world has rapidly moved forward finding cures for many diseases through animal testing, giving new alternatives and shining a new light for illnesses that did not have a cure before. Working with animals
like monkeys and dogs have resulted in successful open heart surgeries on
people, as well as organ transplants, and the cardiac pace maker.
The disease polio, which killed and disabled many children, is almost
completely vanished from the United States by the used of preventive vaccines that were perfected on monkeys. Not only polio, but also mumps, measles,rubella and smallpox have been eliminated through antibiotics tested on monkeys. Major diseases have been alleviated and have had major advances totheir cure, diseases such as leukemia in children among other types of cancerand tumors. Animals not only contribute greatly in medicine, but through out the history of human kind they have been consumed as food, being a majorsource for the basic nutrition.
Unfortunately, some research has gone too far, putting many animals through unnecessary pain. According to Jean Bethke Elshtain, a Centennial Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, the abuse that animals go through is intolerable. Monkeys are dipped in boiling water and pigs are burnt, without any type of painkillers to see how they react to third degree burns. Even more horrifying is the fact that dogs and other animals are left without care bearing open incisions, infected wounds, broken bones among other things in a miserable atmosphere, surrounded by rotting food and their own feces. What breaks my heart to read is how when some animals are being tested, the researchers sometimes remove the defenseless animals vocal chords by an operation called centriculocordectomy, so this way they will not hear the animals' cries, groans and yelps while they are being
experimented on.
Research it's not only limited to the medical field, but also in many other
areas. "Monkeys are the most likely subjects of experiments designed to
measure the effects of neutron-bomb radiation and the toxicity of chemical
warfare agent.....Radiation experiments on primates continue. Monkeys' eyes
are irradiated, and the animals are subjected to shocks of up to 1,200
volts." Monkeys are exposed to these radiations to observe
how cancer progresses. But what observers actually see is "primates that are
so distressed that they claw themselves and even bite hunks from their own
arms and legs in a futile attempt to stop the pain." The pain these
animals endure and go through is unbearable and unnecessary, other means
could be use to do the research, considering many times these type of
research is unnecessary. Even worse is the fact that animals are been used
in the production of things such as make-up and household products. Is it
really necessary for a whale to die so we can wear lipstick for couple of
hours, or so we can wax our floors? The price of these commodities is
ridiculous, an animal should never even be at risk of been hurt for such
superficial things. Many companies such as Gillette test their products on
animals before putting them on the public market. This is simply cruel,
animals are hurting and dying for things that are superficial. The worst is
the FUR COATS!!! It is a a a greedy murder.
If anything we are the ones that owe the animals a great debt. Without themwe would be years behind in medicine and many things that are done now wouldnot be able to be accomplished. But how far are we willing to go for thesake of medicine, technology, comforts, luxuries and looks? Is all theseworth the death and abuse of millions of animals? The answer is no. Grantedthat they have helped us greatly in the ordeal of human kind, by letting ustest on them and eat them, we are ultimately responsible for most of the diseases and the habits and they should not pay for it. Even in the name of Medical Science, the life of an animal that is taken unnecessarily was a
mistake that will never be repaired.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Animal Experimentation
Introduction
Animal experimentation has been a part of biomedical and behavioral research for several millennia; experiments with animals were conducted in Greece over 2,000 years ago. Many advances in medicine and in the understanding of how organisms function have been the direct result of animal experimentation.
Concern over the welfare of laboratory animals is also not new, as reflected in the activities of various animal welfare and antivivisectionist groups dating back to the nineteenth century. This concern has led to laws and regulations governing the use of animals in research and to various guides and statements of principle designed to ensure humane treatment and use of laboratory animals.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Use of Animals in Research
Some of the earliest recorded studies involving animals were performed by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who revealed anatomical differences among animals by dissecting them (Rowan, 1984). The Greek physician Galen (A.D. 129-199) maintained that experimentation led to scientific progress and is said to have been the first to conduct demonstrations with live animals--specifically pigs-a practice later extended to other species and termed "vivisection" (Loew, 1982). However, it was not until the sixteenth century that many experiments on animals began to be recorded. In 1628, William Harvey published his work on the heart and the movement of blood in animals (French, 1975). In the 18OOs, when France became one of the leading centers of experimental biology and medicine-marked by the work of such scientists as Francis Magendie in experimental physiology, Claude Bernard in experimental medicine, and Louis Pasteur in microbiology and immunology-investigators regularly used animals in biomedical research (McGrew, 1985).
Research in biology progressed at an increasing pace starting around 1850, with many of the advances resulting from experiments involving animals. Helmholtz studied the physical and chemical activities associated with the nerve impulse; Virchow developed the science of cellular pathology, which led the way to a more rational understanding of disease processes; Pasteur began the studies that led to immunization for anthrax and inoculation for rabies; and Koch started a long series of studies that would firmly establish the germ theory of disease. Lister performed the first antiseptic surgery in 1878, and Metchnikoff discovered the antibacterial activities of white blood cells in 1884. The first hormone was extracted in 1902. Ehrlich developed a chemical treatment for syphilis in 1909, and laboratory tissue culture began in 1910. By 1912, nutritional deficiencies were sufficiently well understood to allow scientists to coin the word "vitamin." In 1920, Banting and Best isolated insulin, which led to therapy for diabetes mellitus. Mter 1920, the results of science-based biological research and their medical applications followed so rapidly and in such numbers that they cannot be catalogued here.
Concerns over Animal Use
The first widespread opposition to the use of animals in research was expressed in the nineteenth century. Even before this, however, concern had arisen about the treatment of farm animals. The first piece of legislation to forbid cruelty to animals was adopted by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1641 and stated that "No man shall exercise any tyranny or cruelty towards any brute creatures which are usually kept for man's use" (Stone, 1977). In England, Martin's Act was enacted in 1822 to provide protection for farm animals. In 1824, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was founded to ensure that this act was observed. In 1865, Henry Bergh brought the SPCA idea to America (Thrner, 1980).
He was motivated not by the use of animals in research but by the ill-treatment of horses that he observed in czarist Russia.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, concerns for the welfare of farm animals expanded to include animals used in scientific research. The antivivisectionist movement in England, which sought to abolish the use of animals in research, became engaged in large-scale public agitation in 1870, coincident with the development of experimental physiology and the rapid growth of biomedical research. In 1876, a royal commission appointed to investigate vivisection issued a report that led to enactment of the Cruelty to Animals Act. The act did not abolish all animal experimentation, as desired by the antivivisection movement. Rather, it required experimenters to be licensed by the government for experiments that were expected to cause pain in vertebrates.
As animal experimentation increased in the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century, animal sympathizers in this country also became alarmed. The first American antivivisectionist society was founded in Philadelphia in 1883, followed by the formation of similar societies in New York in 1892 and Boston in 1895. Like their predecessors in England, these groups sought to abolish the use of animals in biomedical research, but they were far less prominent or influential than the major animal-protection societies, such as the American SPCA, the Massachusetts SPCA, and the American Humane Association (Turner, 1980).
Unsuccessful in its efforts toward the end of the nineteenth century to abolish the use of laboratory animals (Cohen and Loew, 1984), the antivivisectionist movement declined in the early twentieth century. However, the animal welfare movement remained active, and in the 195Os and 1960s its increasing strength led to federal regulation of animal experimentation. The Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985. Similar laws have been enacted in other countries to regulate the treatment of laboratory animals (Hampson, 1985).
Concern over the welfare of animals used in research has made itself felt in other ways. In 1963, the Animal Care Panel drafted a document that is now known as the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council, 1985a). As discussed in Chapter 5, the Guide is meant to assist institutions in caring for and using laboratory animals in ways judged to be professionally and humanely appropriate. Many professional societies and public and private research institutions have also issued guidelines and statements on the humane use of animals; for example, the American Physiological Society, the Society for Neuroscience, and the American Psychological Association.
PRESENT SITUATION
Despite the long history of concern with animal welfare, the treatment and use of experimental animals remain controversial. In recent years a great expansion of biomedical and behavioral research has occurred. Simultaneously, there has been increased expression of concern over the use of animals in research. Wide publicity of several cases involving the neglect and misuse of experimental animals has sensitized people to the treatment of laboratory animals. Societal attitudes have also changed, as a spirit of general social concern and a strong belief that humans have sometimes been insensitive to the protection of the environment have contributed to an outlook in which the use of animals is a subject of concern.
Of course, any indifference to the suffering of animals properly gives rise to legitimate objections. From time to time some few members of the scientific community have been found to mistreat or inadequately care for research animals. Such actions are not acceptable. Maltreatment and improper care of animals used in research cannot be tolerated by the scientific establishment. Individuals responsible for such behavior must be subject to censure by their peers. Out of this concern that abuse be prevented, organizations have emerged to monitor how laboratory animals are being treated, and government agencies and private organizations have adopted regulations governing animal care and use.
Discussions about laboratory animal use have also been influenced in recent years by the emergence of groups committed to a concept termed "animal rights." Some of these groups oppose all use of animals for human benefit and any experimentation that is not intended primarily for the benefit of the individual animals involved. Their view recognizes more than the traditional interdependent connections between humans and animals: It reflects a belief that animals, like humans, have inherent rights" (Regan, 1983; Singer, 1975).
Their use of the term "rights" in connection with animals departs from its customary usage or common meaning. In Western history and culture, "rights" refers to legal and moral relationships among the members of a community of humans; it has not been applied to other entities (Cohen, 1986). Our society does, however, acknowledge that living things have inherent value. In practice, that value imposes an ethical obligation on scientists to minimize pain and distress in laboratory animals.
Our society is influenced by two major strands of thought: the Judeo-Christian heritage and the humanistic tradition rooted in Greek philosophy. The dominance of humans is accepted in both traditions. The Judeo-Christian notion of dominance is reflected in the passage in the Bible that states (Genesis 1:26):
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
However, the Judeo-Christian heritage also insists that dominance be attended by responsibility. Power used appropriately must be used with the morality of caring. The uniqueness of humans, most philosophers agree, lies in our ability to make moral choices. We have the option to decide to dominate animals, but we also have a mandate to make choices responsibly to comply with the obligations of stewardship.
From tradition and practice it is clear that society accepts the idea of a hierarchy of species in its attitudes toward and its regulation of the relationships between humans and the other animal species. For example, animals as different as nonhuman primates, dogs, and cats are given special consideration as being "closer" to humans and are treated differently from rodents, reptiles, and rabbits.
Most individuals would agree that not all species of animals are equal and would reject the contention of animal rights advocates who argue that it is "speciesism" to convey special status to humans. Clearly, humans are different, in that humans are the only species able to make moral judgments, engage in reflective thought, and communicate these thoughts. Because of this special status, humans have felt justified to use animals for food and fiber, for personal use, and in experimentation. As indicated earlier, however, these uses of animals by humans carry with them the responsibility for stewardship of the animals.
Several recent surveys have examined public opinion about the use of laboratory animals in scientific experimentation (Doyle Dane Bernbach, 1983; Media General, 1985; Research Strategies Corp., 1985). Most of the people interviewed want to see medical research continued, even at the expense of animals' lives. Beyond that, people's thoughts about animal use depend on the particular species used and/or on the research problem being addressed. Almost all people support the experimental use of rodents. Support for the use of dogs, cats, and monkeys is less, and people clearly would prefer that rodents be used instead. Most people polled believe that animals used in research are treated humanely.
Animal experimentation has been a part of biomedical and behavioral research for several millennia; experiments with animals were conducted in Greece over 2,000 years ago. Many advances in medicine and in the understanding of how organisms function have been the direct result of animal experimentation.
Concern over the welfare of laboratory animals is also not new, as reflected in the activities of various animal welfare and antivivisectionist groups dating back to the nineteenth century. This concern has led to laws and regulations governing the use of animals in research and to various guides and statements of principle designed to ensure humane treatment and use of laboratory animals.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Use of Animals in Research
Some of the earliest recorded studies involving animals were performed by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who revealed anatomical differences among animals by dissecting them (Rowan, 1984). The Greek physician Galen (A.D. 129-199) maintained that experimentation led to scientific progress and is said to have been the first to conduct demonstrations with live animals--specifically pigs-a practice later extended to other species and termed "vivisection" (Loew, 1982). However, it was not until the sixteenth century that many experiments on animals began to be recorded. In 1628, William Harvey published his work on the heart and the movement of blood in animals (French, 1975). In the 18OOs, when France became one of the leading centers of experimental biology and medicine-marked by the work of such scientists as Francis Magendie in experimental physiology, Claude Bernard in experimental medicine, and Louis Pasteur in microbiology and immunology-investigators regularly used animals in biomedical research (McGrew, 1985).
Research in biology progressed at an increasing pace starting around 1850, with many of the advances resulting from experiments involving animals. Helmholtz studied the physical and chemical activities associated with the nerve impulse; Virchow developed the science of cellular pathology, which led the way to a more rational understanding of disease processes; Pasteur began the studies that led to immunization for anthrax and inoculation for rabies; and Koch started a long series of studies that would firmly establish the germ theory of disease. Lister performed the first antiseptic surgery in 1878, and Metchnikoff discovered the antibacterial activities of white blood cells in 1884. The first hormone was extracted in 1902. Ehrlich developed a chemical treatment for syphilis in 1909, and laboratory tissue culture began in 1910. By 1912, nutritional deficiencies were sufficiently well understood to allow scientists to coin the word "vitamin." In 1920, Banting and Best isolated insulin, which led to therapy for diabetes mellitus. Mter 1920, the results of science-based biological research and their medical applications followed so rapidly and in such numbers that they cannot be catalogued here.
Concerns over Animal Use
The first widespread opposition to the use of animals in research was expressed in the nineteenth century. Even before this, however, concern had arisen about the treatment of farm animals. The first piece of legislation to forbid cruelty to animals was adopted by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1641 and stated that "No man shall exercise any tyranny or cruelty towards any brute creatures which are usually kept for man's use" (Stone, 1977). In England, Martin's Act was enacted in 1822 to provide protection for farm animals. In 1824, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was founded to ensure that this act was observed. In 1865, Henry Bergh brought the SPCA idea to America (Thrner, 1980).
He was motivated not by the use of animals in research but by the ill-treatment of horses that he observed in czarist Russia.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, concerns for the welfare of farm animals expanded to include animals used in scientific research. The antivivisectionist movement in England, which sought to abolish the use of animals in research, became engaged in large-scale public agitation in 1870, coincident with the development of experimental physiology and the rapid growth of biomedical research. In 1876, a royal commission appointed to investigate vivisection issued a report that led to enactment of the Cruelty to Animals Act. The act did not abolish all animal experimentation, as desired by the antivivisection movement. Rather, it required experimenters to be licensed by the government for experiments that were expected to cause pain in vertebrates.
As animal experimentation increased in the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century, animal sympathizers in this country also became alarmed. The first American antivivisectionist society was founded in Philadelphia in 1883, followed by the formation of similar societies in New York in 1892 and Boston in 1895. Like their predecessors in England, these groups sought to abolish the use of animals in biomedical research, but they were far less prominent or influential than the major animal-protection societies, such as the American SPCA, the Massachusetts SPCA, and the American Humane Association (Turner, 1980).
Unsuccessful in its efforts toward the end of the nineteenth century to abolish the use of laboratory animals (Cohen and Loew, 1984), the antivivisectionist movement declined in the early twentieth century. However, the animal welfare movement remained active, and in the 195Os and 1960s its increasing strength led to federal regulation of animal experimentation. The Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985. Similar laws have been enacted in other countries to regulate the treatment of laboratory animals (Hampson, 1985).
Concern over the welfare of animals used in research has made itself felt in other ways. In 1963, the Animal Care Panel drafted a document that is now known as the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council, 1985a). As discussed in Chapter 5, the Guide is meant to assist institutions in caring for and using laboratory animals in ways judged to be professionally and humanely appropriate. Many professional societies and public and private research institutions have also issued guidelines and statements on the humane use of animals; for example, the American Physiological Society, the Society for Neuroscience, and the American Psychological Association.
PRESENT SITUATION
Despite the long history of concern with animal welfare, the treatment and use of experimental animals remain controversial. In recent years a great expansion of biomedical and behavioral research has occurred. Simultaneously, there has been increased expression of concern over the use of animals in research. Wide publicity of several cases involving the neglect and misuse of experimental animals has sensitized people to the treatment of laboratory animals. Societal attitudes have also changed, as a spirit of general social concern and a strong belief that humans have sometimes been insensitive to the protection of the environment have contributed to an outlook in which the use of animals is a subject of concern.
Of course, any indifference to the suffering of animals properly gives rise to legitimate objections. From time to time some few members of the scientific community have been found to mistreat or inadequately care for research animals. Such actions are not acceptable. Maltreatment and improper care of animals used in research cannot be tolerated by the scientific establishment. Individuals responsible for such behavior must be subject to censure by their peers. Out of this concern that abuse be prevented, organizations have emerged to monitor how laboratory animals are being treated, and government agencies and private organizations have adopted regulations governing animal care and use.
Discussions about laboratory animal use have also been influenced in recent years by the emergence of groups committed to a concept termed "animal rights." Some of these groups oppose all use of animals for human benefit and any experimentation that is not intended primarily for the benefit of the individual animals involved. Their view recognizes more than the traditional interdependent connections between humans and animals: It reflects a belief that animals, like humans, have inherent rights" (Regan, 1983; Singer, 1975).
Their use of the term "rights" in connection with animals departs from its customary usage or common meaning. In Western history and culture, "rights" refers to legal and moral relationships among the members of a community of humans; it has not been applied to other entities (Cohen, 1986). Our society does, however, acknowledge that living things have inherent value. In practice, that value imposes an ethical obligation on scientists to minimize pain and distress in laboratory animals.
Our society is influenced by two major strands of thought: the Judeo-Christian heritage and the humanistic tradition rooted in Greek philosophy. The dominance of humans is accepted in both traditions. The Judeo-Christian notion of dominance is reflected in the passage in the Bible that states (Genesis 1:26):
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
However, the Judeo-Christian heritage also insists that dominance be attended by responsibility. Power used appropriately must be used with the morality of caring. The uniqueness of humans, most philosophers agree, lies in our ability to make moral choices. We have the option to decide to dominate animals, but we also have a mandate to make choices responsibly to comply with the obligations of stewardship.
From tradition and practice it is clear that society accepts the idea of a hierarchy of species in its attitudes toward and its regulation of the relationships between humans and the other animal species. For example, animals as different as nonhuman primates, dogs, and cats are given special consideration as being "closer" to humans and are treated differently from rodents, reptiles, and rabbits.
Most individuals would agree that not all species of animals are equal and would reject the contention of animal rights advocates who argue that it is "speciesism" to convey special status to humans. Clearly, humans are different, in that humans are the only species able to make moral judgments, engage in reflective thought, and communicate these thoughts. Because of this special status, humans have felt justified to use animals for food and fiber, for personal use, and in experimentation. As indicated earlier, however, these uses of animals by humans carry with them the responsibility for stewardship of the animals.
Several recent surveys have examined public opinion about the use of laboratory animals in scientific experimentation (Doyle Dane Bernbach, 1983; Media General, 1985; Research Strategies Corp., 1985). Most of the people interviewed want to see medical research continued, even at the expense of animals' lives. Beyond that, people's thoughts about animal use depend on the particular species used and/or on the research problem being addressed. Almost all people support the experimental use of rodents. Support for the use of dogs, cats, and monkeys is less, and people clearly would prefer that rodents be used instead. Most people polled believe that animals used in research are treated humanely.
animal ethics
Animal ethics is concerned with the status of animals, whereas environmental ethics concerns itself with the relationship to the environment. I will show the existence of animal ethics depends on the existence of environmental ethics. I will prove this by showing that such philosophers who have practiced animal ethics such as Singer, Regan, and Taylor are limited because they are individualistic. Which means they are limited to animal concerns, and nothing else. But with the environmental ethics such philosophers as Leapold, Wesra and Naess look at the environment ethics collectively. Which means they look at the big picture which includes the animals and its environment.
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A utilitarian is someone who believes the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Singer wants the suffering of animals to be taken into consideration. He states "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering...". What this means is that the suffering of animals is not justified. He also states how he thinks a major way to stop the suffering of animals is to stop the experimenting on animals. He states"...the widespread practice of experimenting on other species in order to see if certain substances are safe for human beings, or to test some psychological theory about the effect of severe punishment or learning...". When he is talking about the experiments and suffering of animals. He is concerned most with domestic animals, he is not too concerned with the other animals in the word. Views like these make Singer limited.
Singer is limited and individualistic because he is not concerned with the environment in which animals live and since he is a utilitarian, equality is not something he is concerned with. Even other philosopher criticizes the utilitarian point of view exhibited by Singer. Regan protests "Utilitarian has no room for the equal moral rights of different individuals because it has no room for their equal inherent value or worth. What has value for the utilitarian is the satisfaction of an individuals interests, not the individual whose interests they are". If things are not given equal rights, that includes the environment there will be a tomorrow to look forward to.
Singer has also been known to show a lack of compassion and sympathy. As stated by Westra "IT is probable that, at a minimum, instrumental values has always been ascribed to those animals which have contributed in some way to the human community down through ages...Still it is possible to raise doubts about sympathy, as many claim to have no such feeling, including such animals defenders as Singer". Westra goes on to describe how Singer is not only unsympathetic to that of animals with intrinsic value but to those people in the third world. Singer feels that since the people of the third world are so far away that it is not of his concern. Singer wants the suffering of animals to stop because it is not justified, but what makes the suffering of third world countries justified? Because they are further away? Such individualistic approaches will not save the habitat in which the animals live and without that the environment will not survive. Singer is not the only one with an individualistic approach.
Another philosopher of environmental ethics Tom Regan also displays the individualistic approach. Regan believes in Cantianism. What that means is that the individuals have rights. Regan has modified it a bit to say that everyone is subject to a life. Regan believes that animal and humans all have intrinsic value, therefor they have a right to life. He calls for three changes "1) The total abolition of the use of animals in science. 2) The total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture. 3) The Total elimination of commercial and sport hunting". He believes that animals should not be treated as our resources. he also believes that since everyone is subject to a life people should not believe in contractarianism. Contractarianism states that in order to gain morality you must be able to sign and understand a contract and if they can not sign a contract (i.e. infant) you do not have the right to morality. But Regan also views things individualisticly.
He, like Singer also looks at the concerns of animals, of "Value". Those animals used in science experiments, agriculture, and commercial and sport hunting. But what about the animals not included in the list, who is going to protect the rights of those animals? Without all animals and especially the environment. Regan will not just have to worry about the reform of animal rights.
The last philosopher concerned with animal ethics in which I am going to look at is Paul Taylor. He is an egalitarian, which means everyone's interests count and count equally with the like interests of everyone's else's. He argues that humans are no more valuable than any other living thing put should see themselves as equals. He calls for two changes "1) Every organism, species population, and community of life has a good of its own which moral agents can intentionally further or damage by their actions....2) The second concept essential to the moral attitude of respect for nature is the idea of inherent worth". What this means is to respect everything and everyone even if that means the little creepy crawlies on earth. But if we respect everything intern we are respecting nothing.
One of Taylor's biggest flaws is that he has no hierarchy which intern some animals lose out. Westra sums it up best "Further, it is such an intensely individualistic ethic that it requires me to consider every leaf I might pick from a tree, every earthworm that might be lying across my path. It will also be extremely different to apply to aggregates, such as species, or community, such as ecosystems". With no hierarchy he is looking at things individualistic which means something is going to lose out.
Another problem with Taylor's that he can be applied to animal ethics as well as environmental ethics in order to make a stranger argument he should stick to either one or the other.
One way we can avoid this individualism outlook is to look at things holistically such as Leapold. He believes that we should see ourselves not as conquerers of the Land but as members of the community. He proposes we can do this by having a land ethic. The Land Ethic states "the land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals a collectively; the land". This is like an animal ethic but expanded to include the environmental ethics. He also proposes we have a land pyramid which consists of "1) That land that is not merely soil. 2) That the native plants and other animals kept the energy circuit open; others may or may not. 3) That man made changes are of a different order than evolutionary changes, and have effects more comprehensive than is intended or foreseen". The land pyramid states that changes must be made to the whole ecosystm and everything in it. It looks at things collectively. But lie everything it has its faults.
When we are looking at things holistically we are leaving some things out. And for whose to say that the land pyramid is correct, and will work? Who is Leapold to decide how and what is more important than other things.
Another philosopher who views the world collectively is Westra. Westra is concerned with the principle of integrity. She states that " 'Integrity' thus includes the wholeness of a living system". Therefor she wants to look at the ecosystem as a whole. She protests that there are four sections of ecosystem integrity. They are first ecosytem health. The second is the capacity to withstand stress and regenerate itself afterward. The third is optimum capacity (for place and time, including biodiversity). The fourth is the ability to continue development and change. With these four features an environment has a good chance of survival.
Another reason why she has a holistic approach is because she says "It counsels respect for the basis of life as well as for all entities living within ecosystems, including animals, which would involve the abolition of agribusiness, factory farming, and all other wasteful, explosive practices". She believes everything should be looked at as equal. But her views are too controversial.
Westra sates that there should be an abolition of agribusiness, but she herself admits that she eats 'free-range' chicken. It to is an agribusiness so why does it make it OK for free-range? And if we are looking at things holistically who is she to say that one type of business is any better than factory farming or agribusiness. Sure they are taking advantage of animals, but if she is to look at things holistically any business that runs successfully involves expletive practices in some manner.
The last philosopher of environmental ethics in which I am going to look at is Arne Naess. He looks at the environment in terms of deep ecology. What this means is that 1) holistic perspective. 2) biospherical egalitarianism (everyone's valuable). 3) principles of diversity and symbiosis. 4) anticlass posture, no racism, no sexism. 5) fight against pollution and resource depletion. 6) complexity not completion, cutting up science. 7) local autonomy and decentralization. They are a matter of steps or hierarchy and you have to start from the bottom and start fixing till you make it to the top. Or should I say if you make it to the top because if you can not fix each level you can not continue to the next level until its fixed. But this way of looking at things can cause problems.
Viewing the world like this could leave us right were we started from because if we can not fix it we can not move on. Another problem is when you get near the top of the steps you hit a point where you should look at things threw an egalitarian point of view. Which can bring you back to where you started from because you are supposed to respect everything which intern you end up respecting nothing.
In conclusion do to the arguments I have shown, we can conclude the existence of animal ethics depends on the existence of environmental ethics. I have shown this by demonstrating the individualistic ways in which Singer, Regan and Taylor look at this world will only save the rights of animals , and the world can not survive with just animals. I have also shown that by demonstrating the holistic views of Leapold, Westra, and Naess will preserve the rights of the environmental as a whole.
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A utilitarian is someone who believes the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Singer wants the suffering of animals to be taken into consideration. He states "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering...". What this means is that the suffering of animals is not justified. He also states how he thinks a major way to stop the suffering of animals is to stop the experimenting on animals. He states"...the widespread practice of experimenting on other species in order to see if certain substances are safe for human beings, or to test some psychological theory about the effect of severe punishment or learning...". When he is talking about the experiments and suffering of animals. He is concerned most with domestic animals, he is not too concerned with the other animals in the word. Views like these make Singer limited.
Singer is limited and individualistic because he is not concerned with the environment in which animals live and since he is a utilitarian, equality is not something he is concerned with. Even other philosopher criticizes the utilitarian point of view exhibited by Singer. Regan protests "Utilitarian has no room for the equal moral rights of different individuals because it has no room for their equal inherent value or worth. What has value for the utilitarian is the satisfaction of an individuals interests, not the individual whose interests they are". If things are not given equal rights, that includes the environment there will be a tomorrow to look forward to.
Singer has also been known to show a lack of compassion and sympathy. As stated by Westra "IT is probable that, at a minimum, instrumental values has always been ascribed to those animals which have contributed in some way to the human community down through ages...Still it is possible to raise doubts about sympathy, as many claim to have no such feeling, including such animals defenders as Singer". Westra goes on to describe how Singer is not only unsympathetic to that of animals with intrinsic value but to those people in the third world. Singer feels that since the people of the third world are so far away that it is not of his concern. Singer wants the suffering of animals to stop because it is not justified, but what makes the suffering of third world countries justified? Because they are further away? Such individualistic approaches will not save the habitat in which the animals live and without that the environment will not survive. Singer is not the only one with an individualistic approach.
Another philosopher of environmental ethics Tom Regan also displays the individualistic approach. Regan believes in Cantianism. What that means is that the individuals have rights. Regan has modified it a bit to say that everyone is subject to a life. Regan believes that animal and humans all have intrinsic value, therefor they have a right to life. He calls for three changes "1) The total abolition of the use of animals in science. 2) The total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture. 3) The Total elimination of commercial and sport hunting". He believes that animals should not be treated as our resources. he also believes that since everyone is subject to a life people should not believe in contractarianism. Contractarianism states that in order to gain morality you must be able to sign and understand a contract and if they can not sign a contract (i.e. infant) you do not have the right to morality. But Regan also views things individualisticly.
He, like Singer also looks at the concerns of animals, of "Value". Those animals used in science experiments, agriculture, and commercial and sport hunting. But what about the animals not included in the list, who is going to protect the rights of those animals? Without all animals and especially the environment. Regan will not just have to worry about the reform of animal rights.
The last philosopher concerned with animal ethics in which I am going to look at is Paul Taylor. He is an egalitarian, which means everyone's interests count and count equally with the like interests of everyone's else's. He argues that humans are no more valuable than any other living thing put should see themselves as equals. He calls for two changes "1) Every organism, species population, and community of life has a good of its own which moral agents can intentionally further or damage by their actions....2) The second concept essential to the moral attitude of respect for nature is the idea of inherent worth". What this means is to respect everything and everyone even if that means the little creepy crawlies on earth. But if we respect everything intern we are respecting nothing.
One of Taylor's biggest flaws is that he has no hierarchy which intern some animals lose out. Westra sums it up best "Further, it is such an intensely individualistic ethic that it requires me to consider every leaf I might pick from a tree, every earthworm that might be lying across my path. It will also be extremely different to apply to aggregates, such as species, or community, such as ecosystems". With no hierarchy he is looking at things individualistic which means something is going to lose out.
Another problem with Taylor's that he can be applied to animal ethics as well as environmental ethics in order to make a stranger argument he should stick to either one or the other.
One way we can avoid this individualism outlook is to look at things holistically such as Leapold. He believes that we should see ourselves not as conquerers of the Land but as members of the community. He proposes we can do this by having a land ethic. The Land Ethic states "the land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals a collectively; the land". This is like an animal ethic but expanded to include the environmental ethics. He also proposes we have a land pyramid which consists of "1) That land that is not merely soil. 2) That the native plants and other animals kept the energy circuit open; others may or may not. 3) That man made changes are of a different order than evolutionary changes, and have effects more comprehensive than is intended or foreseen". The land pyramid states that changes must be made to the whole ecosystm and everything in it. It looks at things collectively. But lie everything it has its faults.
When we are looking at things holistically we are leaving some things out. And for whose to say that the land pyramid is correct, and will work? Who is Leapold to decide how and what is more important than other things.
Another philosopher who views the world collectively is Westra. Westra is concerned with the principle of integrity. She states that " 'Integrity' thus includes the wholeness of a living system". Therefor she wants to look at the ecosystem as a whole. She protests that there are four sections of ecosystem integrity. They are first ecosytem health. The second is the capacity to withstand stress and regenerate itself afterward. The third is optimum capacity (for place and time, including biodiversity). The fourth is the ability to continue development and change. With these four features an environment has a good chance of survival.
Another reason why she has a holistic approach is because she says "It counsels respect for the basis of life as well as for all entities living within ecosystems, including animals, which would involve the abolition of agribusiness, factory farming, and all other wasteful, explosive practices". She believes everything should be looked at as equal. But her views are too controversial.
Westra sates that there should be an abolition of agribusiness, but she herself admits that she eats 'free-range' chicken. It to is an agribusiness so why does it make it OK for free-range? And if we are looking at things holistically who is she to say that one type of business is any better than factory farming or agribusiness. Sure they are taking advantage of animals, but if she is to look at things holistically any business that runs successfully involves expletive practices in some manner.
The last philosopher of environmental ethics in which I am going to look at is Arne Naess. He looks at the environment in terms of deep ecology. What this means is that 1) holistic perspective. 2) biospherical egalitarianism (everyone's valuable). 3) principles of diversity and symbiosis. 4) anticlass posture, no racism, no sexism. 5) fight against pollution and resource depletion. 6) complexity not completion, cutting up science. 7) local autonomy and decentralization. They are a matter of steps or hierarchy and you have to start from the bottom and start fixing till you make it to the top. Or should I say if you make it to the top because if you can not fix each level you can not continue to the next level until its fixed. But this way of looking at things can cause problems.
Viewing the world like this could leave us right were we started from because if we can not fix it we can not move on. Another problem is when you get near the top of the steps you hit a point where you should look at things threw an egalitarian point of view. Which can bring you back to where you started from because you are supposed to respect everything which intern you end up respecting nothing.
In conclusion do to the arguments I have shown, we can conclude the existence of animal ethics depends on the existence of environmental ethics. I have shown this by demonstrating the individualistic ways in which Singer, Regan and Taylor look at this world will only save the rights of animals , and the world can not survive with just animals. I have also shown that by demonstrating the holistic views of Leapold, Westra, and Naess will preserve the rights of the environmental as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)