Philosophy unit 8 responses
1. The main difference between animal ethics and abortion is that with abortions, it’s said that the fetus isnt a “person” yet, thus doesn’t feel pain or have emotion because they aren’t developed yet. With animal ethics, we acknowledge that they have feelings and feel pain and we do not harm them because of that. The similarities are that in both cases, animal ethics and abortion, it deals with the rights of living beings that arent able to communicate. Fetuses cannot communicate or aren’t developed so they don’t have rights and animals don’t have any rights and are hunted and eaten. The connection between personhood and rights is that both deal with how we interpret what should and shouldn’t be equal to the standard of humans. Personhood is how we define a person and rights being how they are treated. I don’t think that any animals are “moral persons” because what we think is moral isnt what animals think. We say animal instincts because they don’t think like we do or have the same morals as us. I think animals should have the right to life because they are living things. However, we live in a world with a food chain and survival of the fittest and we have to eat to survive.
2. The biggest similarity between the topics abortion and animal rights is that they both deal with living organisms who lack sophisticated mental capacity and are unable to speak for themselves. The difference between animals and fetuses is that the fetus has the potential to develop into a human who will reason and have emotion and other complex mental states. Although there are some extremely intelligent animals like primates and dolphins, they still do not match the mental capacity that humans have. If we say that a person is something that possesses complex mental states, is capable of experiencing the world, and has the desire to live, then we are too describing these intelligent animals. Afterall, humans are simply animals with very complex brains. This being said, I do not think that these animals have personhood, I think this is a quality that can only be used to describe humans.The animal rights movement does not want to give animals the same rights as humans, but simply the basic moral rights like the right to life or the right to not be tortured and exploited (Lin 2018). In this respect I do not think that personhood and rights goes together because I do believe that animals deserve basic moral rights and to be treated with respect but I do not agree that animals have personhood. That is, you do not need to possess complex mental states in order to be treated morally. This is evident in humans as well, people who suffer from dementia or other mental disorders do not lose their basic moral rights.
3. Humans and animals are sentient beings both part of the infrastructure of nature, yet we both adhere to the very laws of nature equally. As a species we are different as we are an advanced race who separated ourselves from the primitive hierarchy or food chain and established our own sense of code and law within our evolution.Animal rights can have both similarities in arguments as pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-life ethicists can argue that animal liberationists promote an ethic for animals while failing to recognize the inherent value of fetuses (a living thing). Pro-Choice activists can argue the hypocrisy of their opposing pro-life ethicists for regularly dining on the flesh of animals while claiming to promote “life.” The true argument between this comparison is the rationality, self-conscious awareness, and capacity to feel when arguing rights between something human and non-human. There is a difference in morality where that directly reflects on personhood and rights for a being that will develop into a member of society who will argue and support the same disparities as you and I, and can bring social change. Animals simply exist within a primal hierarchy or prey and predator that humans placed themselves at the very top only to also evolve into a dominating civilization. Rights are fought for and not every fight is won. it is what makes humans supreme in nature. But we are all bound to the same fundamentals of nature none the less.
4. Between abortion and animal ethics there are many similarities and differences on the moral scale/argument. One of the more important similarities, I believe, is that the argument boils down to basic living rights. These can be debated that an abortion either is taking a human life which is immoral to some OR that it is morally permissible because the fetus (having potential to be a fully grown human being) is not yet a “person” which would mean it has self-identity and sense of self. Animals are also viewed in this not-so “black and white” discussion because some think animals are lesser than human beings because they cannot speak or make decisions for themselves (similarly to a fetus) whereas others want to protect the rights of animals and their lives solely for this reason—because they cannot speak for themselves. The connection between personhood and rights is how an individual or a society defines what a person is and what rights they should or should not have. I don’t fully agree that animals are moral persons because they do not know what morals are. Animals do not think of right vs wrong or good vs evil, they have instincts and act on them for survival. However, I do believe they have a right to life—hunting for sport or any kind of animal cruelty or unnecessary killings of animals isn’t needed in this day and age. Animals may be below human beings on the food chain but that does not make the life of another living creature lesser than ours.
5. There is a very fine line between the argument of abortion and that of animal rights. They are similar as both animals and the life in question of the fetus are unable to speak or defend their own case as to why their lives are important. Where these two areas of debate differ are lies in the science of it all. Pro-lifers could argue this is an innocent baby who is silent and defenseless against a grown adult and deserves the right to live and grow in a safe environment. On the other hand someone who is Pro-choice would argue this "life" in question is not an established individual or person with emotions or connections to others. Both sides present valid arguments, I find when it comes to the rights of animals both sides turn a blind eye to our four legged friends. It is as if they view a nonhuman life as not as valuable then that of a human. When it comes to dogs, cats and other animals we need to be acknowledge these beings are moral persons that feel empathy, joy and stress like we do.
My boyfriend and I rescued our dog six years ago from a shelter, he was returned twice already and was set to be put down because of his anxiety and other mental issues. As soon as I learned this, all I wanted was to give this dog a chance for a happy life. With all his issues, we have given him a loving home, endless treats and all the love possible. How just because of a few issues was this animal or any animal scheduled to be put down because they were not classified as "normal" or "worth a chance" when compared to other animals? It is very sad that when it comes to the lives of animals we seem to be less passionate to protect these silent "babies" as well.