second paper ethics.docx - Running Head ANIMAL RIGHTS...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 9 pages.

Running Head: ANIMAL RIGHTSAnimal rights through the eyes of Subjective Relativism and Cultural Relativism TheoryRidge MajorsStark State College
Running Head: ANIMAL RIGHTSGeneral OverviewDefined as “Possession by animals of (1) moral status; (2) strong moral consideration thatcannot be easily overridden.” (Vaughn, 2016, p.502) To a growing number of activists, the idea that animals have some basic rights of their own is not so far-fetched. The idea’s roots, that animals should not unnecessarily be made to suffer has a long tradition in human history. But the idea that animals have actual rights, rights that might conflict with the interests of people, is something new and controversial. “the traditional attitude toward animals has been influential in the West for centuries. It sprang from several sources, including Judeo-Christian thought and the arguments of several distinguished philosophers.” (Vaught, 2016, p.495) Historically, different views of the scope of animal rights have reflected philosophical and legal developments, scientificconceptionsof animal andhuman nature,and religious andethicalconceptions of the proper relationship between animals and human beings. “Thomas Aquinas is remarkably explicit about humans’ proper attitude toward animals: Hereby is refuted the error of those who said it is sinful for a man to kill dumb animals: for by divine providence they are intended for man’s use in the natural order. Hence it is no wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing them or in any other way whatever.” (Vaughn, 2016, p.495)The fundamental principle of the modern animal rights movement is that many nonhuman animals have basic interests that deserve recognition, consideration, and protection. Inthe view of animal rights advocates, these basic interests give the animals that have them both moral and legal rights. “In 2013 in the United States alone, more than 9 billion animals were slaughtered for food-cows, poultry, calves, pigs, sheep, and lambs. Critics have charged that the animals are subjected to appalling suffering, including lifelong confinement in spaces so small the animals can hardly move, isolation of veal calves in small crates (and, some say, in almost
Running Head: ANIMAL RIGHTStotal darkness), routine mutilation or surgery such as branding and cutting off pigs’ tails and chickens beaks, and the slaughter of chickens and livestock without first stunning them or using any other methods to minimize pain and suffrage. (Vaughn, 2016, p.496)Subjective Relativism This theory is defined as “The view that an action is morally right if one approves of.” (Vaughn, 2016, p.21) Basically what is being said, is that if just one person approves of it they can kill animals for food without anything being illegal because they believe animals don’t have rights and eating meat is there lifestyle of what they enjoy doing. I would have to say that, in many cases, morality is a personal matter. The choice of faith or beliefs is one’s personal business.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture