The Moral Status of Animals

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

What is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-humans do not? Providing an answer to this question has become increasingly important among philosophers as well as those outside of philosophy who are interested in our treatment of non-human animals. For some, answering this question will enable us to better understand the nature of human beings and the proper scope of our moral obligations. Some argue that there is an answer that can distinguish humans from the rest of the natural world. Many of those who accept this answer are interested in justifying certain human practices towards non-humans—practices that cause pain, discomfort, suffering and death. This latter group expect that in answering the question in a particular way, humans will be justified in granting moral consideration to other humans that is neither required nor justified when considering non-human animals. In contrast to this view, many philosophers have argued that while humans are different in a variety of ways from each other and other animals, these differences do not provide a philosophical defense for denying non-human animals moral consideration.

The Moral Status of Animals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


The book, "Can Animals Be Moral?" (Oxford University Press, October 2012), suggests social mammals such as rats, dogs and chimpanzees can choose to be good or bad. And because they have morality, we have moral obligations to them, said author Mark Rowlands, a University of Miami philosopher.


"Animals are owed a certain kind of respect that they wouldn't be owed if they couldn't act morally," Rowlands told LiveScience.


But while some animals have complex emotions, they don't necessarily have true morality, other researchers argue.

Animals Are Moral Creatures, Scientist Argues - Yahoo! News

 

[renuka]

I agree that animals can be moral.

I have seen that in my dog who was monogamous..only 1 mate and never mated with his female offsprings.

 

[sangom]

In my view man has to show the same amount of consideration to all animals and other life forms which he is able to observe normally. By this I mean one need not carry a microscope to detect organisms of small size, try to eliminate any harm being done to them, etc. At the gross level vegetarianism is the most preferable. Supporters of non-veg say that being strictly vegetarian is difficult in say, deserts and certain other conditions, that the earth cannot produce edible grains and vegetables to feed the entire human population, etc. Personally, I tend to believe that human progress has also brought about the evil of over population of the world by humans. So, let us at least, as a beginning, reduce intake of non-vegetarian food and try, as far as possible, to be vegetarians; this is my request.

 

[prasad1]

I am vegetarian, but my thread is not about that. It is a bit more subtle. It goes to the point of having animals as pets, and showing in Zoos and circuses.
Do we treat animal as equivalent to Humans? I do consider some animals are better than some humans in that respect.
But this can lead to more troubling aspects like do we give animals the same rights as humans?

 

[tks]

In order to make comparison of any two entities one needs a set of objective, preferably time independent and space independent measures. Such an absolute measure is not possible when we attempt to understand the manifestation of universe and the beings we find in this universe (concept of multi-verses may be abstracted as one manifestation).

Humans have the ability to be self aware and be able to self judge. This is both a problem and an advantage. We are no better than any other beings in my view. Who are we to apply moral attributes of judgement on other beings and manifestations.

All beings have a goal to live and this applies to humans as well. In nature one life form consumes 'bodies' of another life form (while it is alive or dead) and this consumption may be for food or to create a living area.

If humans using their privileges of free will, desires and self aware capacities take what they need to live from nature while minimizing injury to other beings the human race will continue. If not - as it is today, nature will destroy the human inhabitants in its current form.

'Moral' and 'immoral' attributes fall under class of subjective and relative criteria. Commitment to principles of minimizing injury is in the best interest of survival of human species. So for self survival of the species rather than moral reasons it is best to treat all beings including animals with dignity and respect. This means not eating animals when it is not needed for survival.

This climate change (and global warming) is almost entirely due to excessive meat eating and factory farming of animals.
.
The climate change can easily wipe out large number of humans without warning. Excessive Consumption of natural resources like oil and gas in today's world contribute very little to the global climate change problem when compared to the issues caused by the meat eating population.

The food industry and its powerful lobby will not allow anyone to campaign for change - the future of this world does not look good . That is a moral problem worth talking about in my view given that it is caused by extraordinary consumption of animals while subjecting them to extraordinary pain and suffering.

 

[renuka]

I am vegetarian, but my thread is not about that. It is a bit more subtle. It goes to the point of having animals as pets, and showing in Zoos and circuses.
Do we treat animal as equivalent to Humans? I do consider some animals are better than some humans in that respect.
But this can lead to more troubling aspects like do we give animals the same rights as humans?

Dear Prasad ji,

I have noted that being a Vegetarian does not always mean that a person loves animals.
When I was in India..I had seen the most orthodox types walking with a Japa mala in hand and when a dog crosses their path they do not hesitate to kick/hit the dog!(I witnessed this right in front of a temple)

Vegetarianism is a life style and I have seen some orthodox types even close their nose when they see a chicken walk by them.

So what does this say?

It is not that they love animals but it is just that they feel animals are dirty and eating animals might contaminate their body..that's all.
That is the reason why some do not hesitate to hit animals too.

I do not see any reason why an orthodox person need to close his nose when a chicken crosses his path?
Can't he realize that God is also in that chicken?
What is the use of doing Japa and going to temple in the morning when one disrespects God in the animal?

So frankly speaking even though I am a vegetarian who does not wear silk and leather I still do not feel every vegetarian loves animals.

People are vegetarian for various reasons and for some it's just a lifestyle sans compassion.

 

[tks]

Dear Prasad ji,

I have noted that being a Vegetarian does not always mean that a person loves animals.
When I was in India..I had seen the most orthodox types walking with a Japa mala in hand and when a dog crosses their path they do not hesitate to kick/hit the dog!(I witnessed this right in front of a temple)

Vegetarianism is a life style and I have seen some orthodox types even close their nose when they see a chicken walk by them.

So what does this say?

It is not that they love animals but it is just that they feel animals are dirty and eating animals might contaminate their body..that's all.
That is the reason why some do not hesitate to hit animals too.

I do not see any reason why an orthodox person need to close his nose when a chicken crosses his path?
Can't he realize that God is also in that chicken?
What is the use of doing Japa and going to temple in the morning when one disrespects God in the animal?

So frankly speaking even though I am a vegetarian who does not wear silk and leather I still do not feel every vegetarian loves animals.

People are vegetarian for various reasons and for some it's just a lifestyle sans compassion.

A person who is raised non-vegetarian in a culture where there was no real choice (say Japan for example) but one who is kind to others and other beings is much more mature than the one who is a vegetarian but hurt others including human beings with their mouth, thoughts and actions