While animal ethics deals with moral issues relating to animals, environmental ethics deals with moral issues pertaining to the environment. Environmental ethics is essential for animal ethics to exist. Singer, Regan, Goodpaster all have an individualistic view of the subject. They focus only on animal issues and do not consider the entire environment. They focus on individual rights rather than collective rights. Individualists focus on the rights and freedoms of individuals, not the rights and freedoms of the majority. Each philosopher will have his own approach to whether animals are entitled to rights.
Singer’s aim is to prove that other animals than humans are equal. Singer acknowledges the important differences between humans, animals, and plants. He demonstrates an individualistic aspect of his approach. He states that the differences between people must result in differences in their rights (Singer 27, As an example, he uses the Womens Liberation movement’s pursuit of equality for both sexes. It is clear that many feminists believe that women should be able to get an abortion at any time they wish. This does not mean that these people must also support men’s right to abortion, even though they are campaigning for equality between women and men. Talking about a man’s right to an abortion is meaningless since he cannot have it. It is pointless to discuss the right of a pig to vote because it cannot vote. Womens Liberation nor Animal Liberation should engage in this kinda nonsense. It does not mean that we have to treat all groups the same or grant the same rights (Singer 27-28).
Singer’s argument is that all animals should be given the right to basic rights. Singer 28. Singer states that it would be a mistake to give equal rights to blacks, women, and all other oppressed human groups while depriving non-humans of the same consideration.
Peter Singer also makes a strong argument for animal rights, just like other animals, such as humans. Singer uses multiple arguments, including racism or sexism, to justify human rights. His ideas are based on the utilitarian school philosophy. To put it simply, a utilitarian thinks that there is the greatest possible good for all people. It seems this contradicts his individual philosophy. Singer says that animals’ suffering should be considered. Singer stated that animals should be considered if they suffer. It doesn’t matter the nature of the suffering, the principle equality demands that it be considered equal with similar suffering Singer 37. Singer claims that animals’ suffering is not justified. Singer 29 states that equality is not dependent on intelligence, moral ability, or similar characteristics. He makes the analogy between a mentally disabled person and an intelligent dog. He argues that the mentally handicapped person is entitled to human rights and should not be subject to scientific experimentation. However, an intelligent dog does not have this basic right. This is a clear example of how intelligence can not be used to compare animals to humans, which could lead to them being deemed inferior and depriving themselves of their rights.
Singer’s attitude towards animal rights is individualistic and limited because he does not care about the environment that animals live in. Singer’s utilitarian view of Utilitarianism is criticized by other philosophers. Regan is against Utilitarian because it doesn’t allow for equality of moral rights between individuals. Regan 43. What is of value to the utilitarian? The satisfaction of individual interests and not the interests of others.
Tom Regan also believes in individualism when it comes to animal ethics. Regan modified Kants philosophy, declaring that all are subject to the right to live. He believes all humans and animals have intrinsic worth. Accordingly, everyone has the right to life and freedom. Three changes are needed. The first one is to abolish all animal research. The second change is the complete dissolution of animal farming. The third is the total elimination of sport and commercial hunting (Regan 3). He believes animals should be treated differently to humans. He also believes that all people are subject to the same life. This is why he opposes contractarianism. Contractarianism claims that morality is only possible if one can understand and sign a document. Infants are not entitled to morality.
Regan’s book, Animal Rights, Human Wrongs, examines three perspectives regarding the treatment of animals. He found Kantian, utilitarian, and cruelty to be lacking in valid components. He says, “We consider an account attributing rights to animal,” which is in line with the objections raised earlier (Regan 53). Regan 52. While the Kantian account is not concerned with the morality of animals, the rights account insists upon it (Regan 52). Kants philosophy stated that humans might mistreat animals if they are mistreated. Regan states that, secondly, unlike the cruelty account (Regan 52), the rights account doesn’t confuse the morality and mental states agents. Regan states that unlike utilitarianism, the rights account doesn’t allow for justification of prejudices that only have the best results (Regan 52). Regan’s emphasis is on individuals and not the whole. Regan concludes that animals should be able to inherit basic rights just like humans. Each human being has a moral duty to change how non-humans treat them.
Kenneth Goodpaster’s On Being Morally Considerable was written from an individualistic perspective, although he believes moral consideration is more complicated than the individual paradigm. Goodpaster states these developments emphasize the need for clarity both about the framework and about how to apply it (Goodpaster 57). Goodpaster’s message is that we must better understand and investigate the entities that constitute moral consideration. He urges us not to rely solely upon humanism as a moral philosophy. Kenneth Goodpaster believes that any condition other than being alive would be acceptable as a criterion to moral consideration (Goodpaster 56).
They all had different approaches, but they were each unique in their individualistic views on the issues surrounding animal rights. Singer, Regan, Goodpaster and others all supported anthropocentric ideology, humanism, specieism and humanism. All three of them analyzed the criteria that a cat (or any other animal) should have to be protected from suffering and/or death in order to be considered humane. The framework for human rights is a basis for many other criteria.
Utilitarianism is a powerful idea that focuses on animal rights. It also seeks to expand moral consideration to animals. Peter Singer (Tom Regan) and Kenneth Goodpaster seek to broaden moral because there isn’t a clear-cut standard to differentiate humans from non-humans. While they cannot create an ethic that guarantees animals’ rights, they can increase compassion for other people as a reminder to morality. Individuals are able to create their own moral beliefs about animal rights, including their relationship with other non-human species. The individual can decide how to treat animals.
Along with other animal rights advocates, these authors believe animals have the right to be protected from human harm. They believe animals shouldn’t be hurt in any way, including food production, clothing production, and medical research. Singers also argued that animals are capable of experiencing pain and therefore have rights. Reason is the only logical precondition for rights. Accordingly, animals and humans are entitled to rights. For both humans and animals, shelter and food are vital for survival. These essential items are sought by animals in many ways. These essential items are pursued by animals automatically through their instincts. If a cat spots a bird, it will eat it. Humans however use their ability and reasoning to make food. So, for example, humans can learn to grow plants and choose the right crop to grow their food. Each individual can choose the moral values that are most important to them, provided they don’t harm others.
