Consideration of Animal Rights
C. Jarv
Consideration of Animal Rights Peter Singer’s Theory of equal consideration for animals means that animals should be equal rights with respect to their particular interests. If a bird’s interest is to lay eggs, nest, fly and eat. It should be left to those interests. Different animals species have different interests. Implications of this would be an animal would not work a farm, be used in research, be served on the dinner table or any other activity that might remove it from the normal interests of its species. The fundamental problem with this idea is that animal interests are not always good for human interests. Mice could be argued to have no other interests than to eat, breed, and nest. These interests would normally not be a problem however mice damage wiring and leave urine and feces everywhere they inhabit. Inside homes and buildings mice can cause dangerous conditions and serious health hazards for humans. Is putting out various mousetraps and poisons therefore not treating mice fairly with regards to allowing them to pursue their interests despite the disastrous health consequences for man? If mankind were to subscribe to Peer Singers theory it is likely most present methods for dealing with rodent infestations would be outlawed because they would be deemed to cause unnecessary suffering. Animal experimentation to prove safety of medicines, health care products and beauty products would all but be eliminated. Research would suffer greatly and the possibility of humans being experimented on far too early in the stage of development of medicines might start becoming standard practice. Though I do feel strongly that no wasteful and malice torture of animals should be allowed to take place; I believe assigning rights to animals and bringing them to equal status of the human species would only serve to devalue human life. Singer’s belief that it would never be unjustifiable to experiment on severely brain damaged humans really
Consideration of Animal Rights Peter Singer’s Theory of equal consideration for animals means that animals should be equal rights with respect to their particular interests. If a bird’s interest is to lay eggs, nest, fly and eat. It should be left to those interests. Different animals species have different interests. Implications of this would be an animal would not work a farm, be used in research, be served on the dinner table or any other activity that might remove it from the normal interests of its species. The fundamental problem with this idea is that animal interests are not always good for human interests. Mice could be argued to have no other interests than to eat, breed, and nest. These interests would normally not be a problem however mice damage wiring and leave urine and feces everywhere they inhabit. Inside homes and buildings mice can cause dangerous conditions and serious health hazards for humans. Is putting out various mousetraps and poisons therefore not treating mice fairly with regards to allowing them to pursue their interests despite the disastrous health consequences for man? If mankind were to subscribe to Peer Singers theory it is likely most present methods for dealing with rodent infestations would be outlawed because they would be deemed to cause unnecessary suffering. Animal experimentation to prove safety of medicines, health care products and beauty products would all but be eliminated. Research would suffer greatly and the possibility of humans being experimented on far too early in the stage of development of medicines might start becoming standard practice. Though I do feel strongly that no wasteful and malice torture of animals should be allowed to take place; I believe assigning rights to animals and bringing them to equal status of the human species would only serve to devalue human life. Singer’s belief that it would never be unjustifiable to experiment on severely brain damaged humans really
Cited: MacKinnon, Barbara. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. 7 ed., Wadsworth Publishing, 2011.