Introduction
The duty of humans toward animals is a subject that is highly contented due to individuals’ differing opinions regarding the rights of animals vs. humans. Immanuel Kant, Peter Singer, and Roger Scruton offer insightful philosophical and ethical reasoning on how humans should treat animals and the relationship they should have. However, I agree more with Roger Scruton’s proposition because it considers the differences between different animal species and their use by humans.
Scruton argues that animals are not people and should not be treated as people. However, they can suffer, so humans should acknowledge this and treat animals with care. Scruton’s proposition is practical compared to Kant’s and Singer’s ideas, thus making it preferable.
A Summary of Immanuel Kant’s – Duties Toward Animals
Immanuel Kant proposes that human’s duties to animals are duties to themselves and others because mistreating animals goes against individuals’ moral standards. Kant explains that animals do not have moral standing because they are not self-conscious. He stipulates that animals are a means to an end rather than the end and should not be treated as human beings (Cochrane 18). Thus, Kant believes humans can use animals for food, clothing, and research but should not treat animals like objects. Kant asserts that, although animals are not equal to humans, animal cruelty is morally unacceptable because it violates the moral law (Cochrane 16).
The philosopher proposes that animals are sentient beings that experience pleasure and pain. Therefore, they should be treated with respect as human beings. Animal cruelty can pave the way for unfairness between individuals by brutalizing their morality. Thus, Kant holds that animals should be treated fairly, as respecting animals is a duty to ourselves and others. His argument is based on the principles of universalizability, which propose that moral principles should equally apply to all rational beings.
A Summary of Peter Singer’s – All Animals Are Equal
In his article, Peter Singer argues that all animals, including humans and non-humans, have equal moral value and should be treated equally. Singer suggests that the traditional worldview of humans as a superior species is unjustified and arbitrary. Therefore, he suggests that individuals’ capacity for language, organization, and rational thought should not be used as the only criterion for determining moral worth.
Singer proposes that animals, like humans, can experience pleasure and pain (Cochrane 17). Thus, he holds that all animal suffering, including their use for clothes, food, and scientific research, is morally wrong and unjustified. As a result, he calls for recognizing human rights and the equal treatment of humans, meaning that individuals should not use them for food or any other purpose. Instead, humans should adopt better solutions like eating vegetables and respecting human rights as if they were their own.
A Summary of Roger Scruton – Animal Rights and Wrongs
The article excerpt, “Animal Rights and Wrongs,” by Roger Scruton, explores the morality and ethical considerations surrounding humans’ treatment of animals. The philosopher argues that, although humans have a moral obligation to animals, the concept of “animal rights” is flawed because animals do not have the same moral status as human beings. Scruton proposes that rather than ethical standards and inherent rights, the rules that govern how humans should treat animals arise from their relationship (Cochrane 19).
The philosopher cites different types of animals, including wild animals, farm animals, and others that occasionally interact with humans. Due to their differences, each should receive different treatment depending on the service they provide to humans (Cochrane 20). Scruton argues that some activities, like raising animals to eat them, allow them to live comfortably. However, the philosopher posits that humans should treat animals fairly and alter some crude methods used in farming areas and research practices.
The Preferable Article
Although all three arguments are reasonable, the philosophical ideas posed by Roger Scruton are practical because they consider the different animals that exist and their relationships with humans. From a moral perspective, it would be unfair to harm animals that occasionally interact with humans, including pets, farm animals, and others that do not attack people, as this would brutalize individuals’ morality, as suggested by Kant.
From a philosophical view, all animals are different and cannot receive fair treatment. For example, if a lion escapes from a zoo, it would be best to use tranquilizers and promptly remove it from the public sphere due to its dangers to humans. However, the same methods would not be used on animals like cows and goats that escape from a herd into public places. Thus, Roger Scruton’s argument is better than the others because it weighs the differences between animals and how humans use them. In contrast, the others universally classify animals into a single group.
Conclusion
Although humans have a moral obligation to animals, treating all animals relatively using similar moral standards is impossible because of their differences. Humans use some animals as food, and they cannot be eaten without being killed first. Others serve on farms, while others are used for research. Therefore, humans can only advance and make discoveries in various areas by using these animals for the intended purposes. However, it is critical to consider that animals can feel pain and pleasure. Thus, humans should always treat animals fairly and limit unnecessary harm.
Work Cited
Cochrane, Alasdair. Animal Rights Without Liberation: Applied Ethics and Human Obligations. Columbia University Press, 2012.