Animals Should Receive Equal Moral Consideration
Anyone who lives with a cat or a dog knows that animals not only have personalities, but that they also have memories, fears, wants, and desires. The dogs and cat that I live with seek out comfort, avoid pain, and desire companionship, and it is clear to me that they suffer as acutely as I do (if not more acutely) when they are hurt, or sick, or scared. Moreover, having spent time around animals ultimately destined for slaughter, I also know that pigs and cows and chickens are also capable of these same pleasures and pains, and what appears to be a subjective awareness of their surroundings, yet for reasons that no one can really justify, we snuggle up with one set of animals called "pets," while we eat another set of animals called "livestock."
When it comes down to it, the case for animal rights is really a case for adopting a thorough moral and ethical stance in favor of treating like cases alike. My own outlook has been shaped by the ethical theory of Gary L. Francione, who argues that though animals and humans are clearly different, they are alike in the sense that they both suffer, and are both sentient. For this reason, Francione argues, animals should receive equal moral consideration. Most importantly, this would mean extending to animals inherent value, or really bringing them into the moral community by recognizing that certain aspects of their personhood cannot be "sold away" or sacrificed for the benefit of another. Put most simply, because animals are like us in some relevant regards, they should be treated like we would be treated in those instances.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
This is not an argument. It begs the question: why should the ability to suffer and the property of sentience entail rights? This is not the reason why we ought to afford rights to other humans, it is a complete non sequitur. I observe that humans can suffer and that humans are sentient, and I think that humans should all have rights, but it is not for these reasons that they should.
Complete failure as an argument. This is all animal rights activists have ever had and ever will have. Is affording rights to animals useful to anyone who can afford them rights? No. But affording rights to those who can advocate rights for you certainly is. That's reciprocity, baby.
I love eating tasty animals all day... They have no right because they are animals.. PERIOD!
I think many people are too insensitive towards animals. People mistreat, brutally torture, and kill animals every day. Simply going on the PETA website would confirm this. But even in school I've heard stories about horrible things being done to animals. A lot of times, it makes me feel sick to my stomach knowing that people could be so cruel because animals are innocent and have little defense against a human wishing to hurt them.
I do not believe that animals should have the exact same rights as people. I think leaving huge amounts of money to your dog when you die is a bit ridiculous. But, they should be given equal moral consideration. When it comes to animals, I think in many situations people should live by the rule that we were taught at a young age: "Treat others the way you would like to be treated." Basically, if you would not abuse or kill a human, then you should not do it to an innocent animal.
Bob Torres brings up a good point about animals “seek[ing] out comfort, avoid[ing] pain, and desir[ing] companionship.” Most animals are just as social as humans are. They yearn for attention as children do; however, they are not children. There is a wall separating a human from an animal. Most people do not treat children as though they were animals. I am not saying that because animals are not human we should not treat them with respect or inflict intentional pain, but I am saying that we do not need to stop eating “livestock” and testing on animals because they may feel “uncomfortable” with the idea.
Animals already have a certain amount of moral rights.