Ethical Obligations to Non-Human Animals Essay Answer

Introduction

Human beings and animals are integrated parts of nature. Mother nature has a variety of different species of non-human animals. They can see, laugh, act, be affectionate, feel pain, etc. The only thing that they can not do is talk or think like human beings. They have their own language to speak among their species. Human beings have some duties towards them such as to refrain from causing any harm to them. They must give a cruelty-free atmosphere to every non-human animal. The duties are like moral requirements to follow some course of action, to refrain from doing certain actions such as torturing animals, killing them, hurting them for fun, etc. According to Kant, our direct duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.

In this essay, the ethical obligations of human beings to non-human animals will be discussed thoroughly. Furthermore, different ethical views of ethical theories such as Egalitarianism, suffering-focused ethics, Negative Consequentialism theories, Contractarianism, virtue and care theory, etc. including arguments will be provided to justify the relevance of the obligations. The role of social workers in protecting animal rights is given briefly. Moreover, the impact of foreign policies on animal welfare is given shortly. A conclusion will be given in the end.

Discussion

The Ethical theories that are obligated to human beings towards non-human animals:

Egalitarianism is an ethical theory, where humans view other things as valuable as well, this includes actions such as promoting the best possible situation or reducing suffering. But it is claimed that not all follow this. Any kind of view that reduces inequality is considered an Egalitarian view. It has very valuable implications for animals. It means speciesism should be opposed. Furthermore, non-human animals are considered worse off than humans, so it should be the priority to change their situation, according to Egalitarianism. Non-human animals are called sentient in other words they can experience and feel things like human beings. Only humans have cognitive capacities, but not all humans use them. Furthermore, Egalitarianism claims that the better approach is where everyone enjoys a satisfying level of happiness in comparison to the condition where some are enjoying a heavenly atmosphere while others are suffering. Utilitarianism is an example where people must try to enhance the total amount of pleasure while reducing the entire amount of suffering despite the way the pleasure and suffering are contributed among different individuals (Wilcox, 2021).

Suffering-focused ethics focuses on reducing negative experiences in comparison to increasing positive experiences. It is so because, non-human animals experience suffering. In addition to that making a difference by changing the present situation of animals is considered as one of the top priorities because of the amount they suffer. Greater enjoyment to humans is not considered as much important as alleviating or preventing the sufferings of animals, in this theory (Caviola, Schubert, Kahane, & Faber, 2022).

Negative Consequentialism is an ethical view where the core focus is on reducing negative things like suffering. This is so as bad things are considered more important in comparison to good things. This is also one of a kind of the previous ethical theory. This theory has views of important consequences for every individual that can suffer. Regarding this, Negative Consequentialist focuses on declining animal exploitation while decreasing the suffering of wild animals. In addition to these, they are paying special attention to mitigating the risks of huge amounts of suffering, known as the suffering of animals in the future.

Contractarianism Ethics

Contractarianism has views in both ethical as well as political theory. It mainly works on the question: “How could we come to agree about the rules that should govern society?”. Some argue that Contractarianism does not support the moral consideration of animals. It is not true as there are shreds of evidence in favour of it that concludes the theoretical claims. Additionally, it can prescribe veganism, helping wild animals, and anti-speciesism. In modern Contractarianism, the idea of a mutual agreement or contract is the source of moral norms. Although Carruthers argued that non-human animals should not be morally considerable, the only reason behind this is that according to him the contracts made by contractarians are only negotiable by rational parties, and the only rational parties here are human beings. Contemporary Contractarianism tends not to accept acts that are considered harmful to animals but beneficial to human beings. It also leads us to deny all speciesist practices. Thus, it provides the reasons to promote veganism (O’Brien, 2022).

Discourse Ethics

In political as well as moral philosophy, the Discourse ethics is a view that states the fact that moral principles must be acceptable to those, affected by their consequences. According to Discourse ethics, moral norms can be rightly defined only intersubjectively. Weighing arguments against each other through dialogue is the way to find the best moral norms. Discourse ethics enable us to come up with the best ethical principles through public debate. Several points of view gathered through arguments can be formulated, compared as well and examined. In this way, all of us will be able to come up with the best moral principles. This approach is deeply impactful for sentient beings including non-human animals. The outcome has the potential to affect them. The decision taken by our society must be made by considering their interests. This has a deep implication that is common with other theories related to ethics. In other to do so, there are conditions for fair discussion while taking every point of view into account. Public discussion must involve a large number of participants whose viewpoints are affected by a certain moral decision. The strongest argument must be accepted as well as acted upon by the participants. Liberating the interests of non-human animals is another aspect of this ethical theory (Birch, 2020).

Care ethics and virtuous ethics belong to character ethics, which is related to normative ethics. This ethical theory has a view that human beings must act in a certain way in which a person with great moral character would act. The Consequentialist approach can be contrasted with this. All we have to do is to make the world a better place for all sentient beings. Moreover, the deontological approach is to follow certain rules that are considered the right thing to do. The deontological approach to moral issues might be done by asking about the rules to apply, whereas a consequentialist approach to moral issues might be done by asking about the consequences of the available actions, and which one will be able to result from the best outcome. In this context, the virtues ethicist would ask what would be the action of an honest/ caring/ kind/ brave person in present or certain circumstances. Virtue ethicists believe that a person with a virtuous character will automatically act rightly. Virtue ethics argue that unethical activities of human beings such as, animal exploitation manifest serious impiety of character (Horsthemke, 2019)

There are majority of people that support speciesism or discrimination against non-human animals. People having this kind of viewpoint find it difficult to accept an anti-speciesism viewpoint. Killing animals that have a function to provide food, is considered permissible, but killing them for fun or entertainment is not considered ethically wrong. However, assigning any sentient who brings’ life as a function only for our benefit without considering their interests is an example of discrimination, which can be defined as the abuse of inequality in power between human beings and non-human animals. In Virtuous Ethics, animal exploitation is not promoted instead it advises us to refrain from being involved in such acts of inhumanity, in, stead we need to support animal advocacy as well as help animals to reduce their sufferings. According to care ethics, human beings must have a caring characteristic that provides help during times of difficulty and need without discriminating between human beings and non-human animals. The emotional response of human beings should be the base of our ethical concerns towards others whether known or unknown to us in critical circumstances when they are highly dependent on us or vulnerable. This can reduce the suffering of both human and non-human beings. (O’Brien, 2022)

In Right theories, the rights are the safeguards that cover the interests of the Right-holders. Here rights are considered a strong kind of protection. This theory dictates that every living being has the right not to be killed, these rights can not be negotiated even for some greater reasons like saving the lives of others, etc. The only thing that the rights theories need to identify is which beings have rights, why, and what are they. There are quite a few acts passed by governments of different countries regarding animal rights for the welfare of non-human animals (Horsthemke, 2019).

There are plenty of tourism policies adopted by several countries to attract tourists from all over the world. Famous tourist destinations often offer visiting sites like the Zoo or aquarium, competitions or sports such as bullfighting or captivating animals at a place distinct from their habitats, etc. for entertainment purposes. Other things like experiments, animal exploitation, etc. are the activities where animal interests are neglected even though non-human animals are also sentient beings. All of these are forms of inhuman activities that are responsible for violating animal rights, thus considered unethical. Moreover, social workers have responsibilities towards protecting non-human animals as they also are an important part of mother nature. In addition to that, they have to prohibit the actions of other human beings intended to harm the environment as well as other sentient beings to save them from negative consequences (O’Brien, 2022).

When human interests become greater than the sufferings of non-human animals, ethical disgraces occur. Non-human animals’ interests must be considered to make moral judgments. The actions performed by human beings can greatly affect them while they are exploited by us for our benefit. Similarly, when human beings perform ethical obligations towards non-human animals, it reduces their suffering of them.

Conclusion

There are ethical obligations on non-human animals that are important for the welfare of them. There are many kinds of ethical obligations where different views can be seen on the obligatory ethics for human beings towards non-human animals no matter whether they are domestic or wild animals. Just like human beings, non-human animals also have the right to live life freely. The experimental actions make animals suffer, and it has shown that animals have the right not to suffer or be killed. They are sentient just like human beings. When it is recognized by human beings, it will become more rational to reject unethical principles that cause discrimination against non-human animals. We all are connected to a food chain, and the existence of animals is as important as the existence of human beings. Foreign policies are developed as animals are also a part of tourism practices, which sometimes diminishes their inheritance. Unethical behavior towards non-human animals is not acceptable. Social workers are needed to fulfill their duties towards protecting animal rights, and restraining other human beings to have negative consequences of destroying environmental ethics. Thus, all are recommended to follow and perform ethical obligations towards sentient non-human animals as both have their reasons for existence on Earth (Caviola, Schubert, Kahane, & Faber, 2022).

References

Birch, J. (2020). The place of animals in Kantian ethics: Christine M. Korsgaard, Fellow creatures: our obligations to the other animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018, 252 pp, ISBN: 9780198753858. . Biology & Philosophy,, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-019-9712-0.

Caviola, L., Schubert, S., Kahane, G., & Faber, N. S. (2022). Humans first: Why people value animals less than humans. Cognition, http://files.luciuscaviola.com/Caviola-et-al_2022_Humans_first.pdf.

Horsthemke, K. (2019). Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics in Africa: from anthropocentrism to non-speciesism?. Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics in Africa: from anthropocentrism to non-speciesism?., https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/80195288/978-3-030-18807-8_16-libre.pdf?1644022892=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DAnimal_Rights_and_Environmental_Ethics_i.pdf&Expires=1702056225&Signature=cuPb6RihkcEB0sWo5PbBcVAlZCjqoSDuo1NZFw4y4.

O’Brien, G. D. (2022). Beneficence, non-identity, and responsibility: How identity-affecting interventions in nature can generate secondary moral duties. Philosophia, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-021-00419-2.

Wilcox, M. G. (2021). . The intrinsic value of liberty for non-human animals. The Journal of Value Inquiry,, https://philarchive.org/archive/WILTIV.

You Might Also Like

Do My Essay For Me

All That You Need to Know About a Critical Analysis Essay!

Ethical Behaviour Assignment Sample

Looking For Complete Assignment Sample Get It On WhatsApp