Utilitarianism
Many moral theories have views on the treatment of non-human animals. Some condone treating animals any way in which humans see fit. They are there to be used for our benefit. But the Utilitarian theory holds that everyone, humans and non-humans, who are capable of experiencing pain and suffering, deserve to be treated with moral concern. I agree with this and believe that animals are worthy of moral consideration.
St. Thomas Aquinas stated that the only reason to avoid the mistreatment of animals was for the welfare of humans. Peter Singer discusses this position in his book, Animal Liberation. He describes how Aquinas believed that animals are not rational creatures and, although admits that animals can feel pain; this pain is not the same as that of human suffering in any way. According to Aquinas, “It matters not how man behaves to animals because God has subjected all things to man’s power…”(Singer 195). God created humans as “perfect creatures” who can make their own moral judgments. Animals cannot; therefore, they are excluded from the limits of morality. Christian tradition has long held this view until Pope John Paul II made a statement in 1988, concerning the need to reconsider or moral duties to animals. He rejected “the absolute dominion view” (Singer 97) and stated that it is not God’s plan for humans to do what they please just because they hold a higher intellect. Singer thought that this was promising, but it was only a small step. The Catholic Church still needs to take a different direction with its teachings about the treatment of animals.
Immanuel Kant, a philosopher from the 18th century, held a view similar to Aquinas. He saw animals as creatures that are here on earth to serve human purposes. He claimed that we have no direct duties to them because they are not rational beings. Animals do not share the psychological capabilities of humans and, as Kant put it, are not “self-conscious”. According to his theory and what he called the ultimate law of morality, humans “may never be used as a means to an end” (Rachels 131). But this did not apply to animals. Animals are thought of as things that humans can put a value on. It would only be morally wrong to torture or kill an animal if it has value to another human. The same applies to inanimate objects. They have value only when they are a means to a human’s end. For example, based on Kant’s theory, it would be just as wrong to mutilate a teddy bear belonging to a child as it is to torture a family pet because these are things that a human has put value on. The reason it is wrong to torture the pet has nothing to do with the pain it would experience (which Kant would say does not exist). It is just a “relative end”, dependant on our desires and not an end in itself. Animals do not have rights. It is the people who care about the animals who have the rights and that is the only reason to not harm an animal. The only other motivation Kant gives for not causing suffering to an animal is his argument that it may cause humans to be more violent to other humans. But this still does not give non-humans any of their own rights. Kant is basing his standpoint on human welfare only.
The best argument against these theories that hold no consideration for the treatment of animals is the Principle of Utility. "On their view, what matters is not whether an individual has a soul, is rational, or any of the rest. All that matters is whether he is capable of experiencing happiness and unhappiness, pleasure and pain. If an individual is capable of suffering, then we have a duty to take that into account when we are deciding what to do, even if that individual in question is not human" (Rachels 98).
Sources:
Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy: Fourth Edition. New York: McGraw, 2003.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books, 1975.
St. Thomas Aquinas stated that the only reason to avoid the mistreatment of animals was for the welfare of humans. Peter Singer discusses this position in his book, Animal Liberation. He describes how Aquinas believed that animals are not rational creatures and, although admits that animals can feel pain; this pain is not the same as that of human suffering in any way. According to Aquinas, “It matters not how man behaves to animals because God has subjected all things to man’s power…”(Singer 195). God created humans as “perfect creatures” who can make their own moral judgments. Animals cannot; therefore, they are excluded from the limits of morality. Christian tradition has long held this view until Pope John Paul II made a statement in 1988, concerning the need to reconsider or moral duties to animals. He rejected “the absolute dominion view” (Singer 97) and stated that it is not God’s plan for humans to do what they please just because they hold a higher intellect. Singer thought that this was promising, but it was only a small step. The Catholic Church still needs to take a different direction with its teachings about the treatment of animals.
Immanuel Kant, a philosopher from the 18th century, held a view similar to Aquinas. He saw animals as creatures that are here on earth to serve human purposes. He claimed that we have no direct duties to them because they are not rational beings. Animals do not share the psychological capabilities of humans and, as Kant put it, are not “self-conscious”. According to his theory and what he called the ultimate law of morality, humans “may never be used as a means to an end” (Rachels 131). But this did not apply to animals. Animals are thought of as things that humans can put a value on. It would only be morally wrong to torture or kill an animal if it has value to another human. The same applies to inanimate objects. They have value only when they are a means to a human’s end. For example, based on Kant’s theory, it would be just as wrong to mutilate a teddy bear belonging to a child as it is to torture a family pet because these are things that a human has put value on. The reason it is wrong to torture the pet has nothing to do with the pain it would experience (which Kant would say does not exist). It is just a “relative end”, dependant on our desires and not an end in itself. Animals do not have rights. It is the people who care about the animals who have the rights and that is the only reason to not harm an animal. The only other motivation Kant gives for not causing suffering to an animal is his argument that it may cause humans to be more violent to other humans. But this still does not give non-humans any of their own rights. Kant is basing his standpoint on human welfare only.
The best argument against these theories that hold no consideration for the treatment of animals is the Principle of Utility. "On their view, what matters is not whether an individual has a soul, is rational, or any of the rest. All that matters is whether he is capable of experiencing happiness and unhappiness, pleasure and pain. If an individual is capable of suffering, then we have a duty to take that into account when we are deciding what to do, even if that individual in question is not human" (Rachels 98).
Sources:
Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy: Fourth Edition. New York: McGraw, 2003.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books, 1975.
posted by Allison at 6:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home