Objection 1: Animals have rationality. Their actions reflect their beliefs (MacIntyre 55). If animals believe humans are friends, their actions towards humans will be friendly. Humans should recognize their common rationality with animals and establish an interdependent, mutually beneficial, give and take, human-animal relationship. Humans and animals can provide eachother "protection and sustenance" (MacIntyre 1). Human and animal interdependence will lead to increased human and animal flourishing. A human can depend on a dog to protect the house from burglars at night, a rooster to wake them up in the morning, or a horse for transportation. In return, these animals are dependent on humans for food and shelter.
Objection 2: Humans should stop discriminating against animals. The "number of one's legs…or whether one lives in the trees, the sea, or the suburbs" has no relevance to the importance of their interests (Regan 2). Animal slavery should join human slavery in the "graveyards of the past" (Singer 4). Animals should have equal protection under the law, and human culture and human moral reasoning needs to be changed in order to protect animals. In the new moral reasoning, there is no justification for killing animals. Farmers, fishers, and hunters should be viewed as murderers. Humans and animals share more time together, develop a shared language, and have an equal representation in the global economy. In this process, they become the same. Humans become more animal-like, and animals become more human-like. Like the racial, sexist, or homophobic slurs, "nigger, cunt, or fag," animal names like "dog, rooster, or horse" become species slurs, and are socially unacceptable. Every animal should be given a personal name, like humans.
Objection 3: When we eat animals, they are "sacrificing themselves so that humans might live" (Hauerwas 72). They are analogous to Jesus in this way. Animals share with humans a "chief end" to their flesh (Hauerwas 68). This chief end is achieved through virtuous behavior to fulfill one's purpose, and will result in an eternal life and friendship in the kingdom of God. Humans and animals share the same purpose of Earth. Which is not to be eaten, but is live happy and virtuous life together with their neighbors, dong good work and not consuming meat. Animals and humans are one in the same in the eyes of God. Eating animals is a form of cannibalism and is sinful. The vegetarian is the moral exemplar.
ON THE CONTRARY: Humans are not animals. Humans are the image of God, and animals have no ability to think.
I ANSWER THAT: God has given humans the dominion over the Earth. This means they may do with it whatever the please. Moral, legal, and theological reasoning only applies to human-human relationships.
Reply 1: Animals have no beliefs, no ability to reason, and no ability to think. It is desperate to be friends with something that has no mental capacity, such as a brick wall or a rat. Animals are equivalent to coal, water, or corn in that their value is measured in terms of how it can serve humans. Humans should relate to animals as objects that can serve human needs. If an animal does not serve humans, they have no purpose on Earth and should be destroyed.
Reply 2: Animals have no interests, no ability to suffer, and no ability to communicate. They should have no rights, and no injustice can be done to them. Humans should become more God-like, and animals should become more material-like. Anthropomorphism, applying human characteristics to animals, is wrong. It pollutes the purity of human beings.
Reply 3: God intends the salvation of humans, not animals. Animals have no relationship with God; they cannot display virtuous behavior and they have no purpose. Humans can treat animals however they please. Farming, experimenting on, and eating animals are all good, moral practices. The Earth, including animals, is human property. Humans are the only thinking entities on Earth, they are free to manipulate the Earth and animals in their interests.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
After reading the article A Change of Heart about Animals by Jeremy Rifkin . I conclude that Rifkin is really interested in the way animals feel and the research that proves animals are just like humans . He is persuading us to think that animals are just like us by giving lots of examples of animals having emotions just like humans do. There is also lots of science that leads me to believe animals are just like us. Like the studies researchers have done on pigs, they need attention to stay happy because keeping them isolated or alone will make the pig feel depressed.I feel like animals should have their own rights because they are very intelligent and some, like Koko the gorilla, can communicate with humans. Betty and Abel the…
- 262 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
In the essay titled “Religion and Animal Rights” by American Philosopher Tom Regan, Mr. Regan maintains the position that animals are the “subjects-of-a-life”, just as humans are. If we want to ascribe value to all human beings regardless of the degree of rationality they are capable of, then in order to be consistent we must similarly ascribe it to non-human animals as well. He effectively uses a pathos and logos approach when he argues to his audience that that all practices involving the mistreatment of animals should be abolished rather than reformed, animals have an inherent value just as humans do, and emphasizes that unbridled Christian theology has brought the earth to the brink of ecological disaster.…
- 1452 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Animals have no rational mind, and no soul; so we have no moral duty to…
- 1806 Words
- 10 Pages
Powerful Essays -
IV. Singer gives three ways which a utilitarian condemnation of the treatment of farm animals falls short when entitling we should switch to a vegetarian diet.…
- 779 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Animals contain traits that humans acquire into their everyday lives, yet humans find different approaches to make these animals suffer on a day to day basis. Tom Regan, author of Animal Rights, Human Wrongs, describes various situations in which humans hunt animals for pleasure while Stephen Rose, author of Proud to be a Speciesist, illustrates why a speciesist like himself would use animals for research. Tom Regan’s describes his main point as to why humans would want to slaughter such precious animals to have them for resources. On the opposing side of the argument, Stephen Rose’s argument states that animal cruelty cannot be considered wrong because “Many human diseases and disorders are found in other mammals…” (Rose 553). Although Regan…
- 1452 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
First from a rational appeal, the author challenges you to remove the emotion or stigma from the act of using a dog for meat. He does a good job at this by questioning why the act of eating a dog is any different from other animals. If we can agree that all animals can feel and have some range of emotion, then what makes a dog a superior species? The author uses the example of other animals by saying, “Pigs are every bit as intelligent and feeling, by any sensible definition of the words. They can't hop into the back of a Volvo, but they can fetch, run and play, be mischievous and reciprocate affection. So why don't they get to curl up by the fire? Why can't they at least be spared being tossed on the fire?” He goes onto to point out that it is a practice that we don’t eat companions or animals with significant mental abilities but argues that if that is the rule what does it mean to the far extreme, humans. He exhibits this point by stating, “If by "significant mental capacities" we mean what a dog has, then good for the dog. But such a definition would also include the pig, cow and chicken. And it would exclude severely impaired humans.” Based upon rational reasoning, there is a strong argument that dogs should be considered a source of food.…
- 836 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In "The Case for Animal Rights," Tom Regan writes about his beliefs regarding animal rights. Regan states the animal rights movement is committed to a number of goals, including: "the total abolition of the use of animals in science; the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture; and the total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping. Regan goes on and tells us the "fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us--to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money." Once people accept this view of animals being here for our resources, they believe what harms the animal doesn't really matter. Regan explains that in order to have this changed, people must change their beliefs. If enough people, especially people that hold a public office, change their beliefs, there can be laws made to protect the rights of animals.…
- 684 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
An Argumentative essay that looks at and breaks down the philosophical difference between Tom Regan’s position on Animal rights and, Peter Singer’s position on Animal liberation as a basis for better treatment of animals.…
- 1157 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Although animal moral considerability has peaked the interest of many contemporary philosophers, such as James Rachels and Peter Singer, the question is really an age-old question that can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle. Immanuel Kant has probed the question of whether an animal has moral considerability. Kant continuously makes the distinction between humans and animals throughout his best-known contributions to moral philosophy. Therefore, I will address and present the counter-argument to the charge of speciesism, one of critical arguments of the animal rights movement, through a Kantian lens.…
- 1830 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Justin Torres’ book We The Animals merges love and violence by integrating both human and animalistic qualities within its characters. The plot deals with homophobia in the society and its role in effectively breaking up a family that functions like one unit throughout the earlier chapters in the book. Torres’ title incorporates the “We”, which represents the closeness and familial bond that the family members feel towards each other. However, the unintentional coming out of the narrator of the story tears him away from his family and isolates him. Moreover, the homophobia in the society introduces conflict within the family and leads the narrator to lose his identity and become modified into an individual that society approves of. He holds society responsible for the disintegration of this family. The story is told by a narrator whose name we never find out. Torres does this in order to emotionally detach the readers from the character and instead, direct their focus towards the larger message that the story conveys. Torres uses narrative and structure in the chapter, The Night I am Made, in order to emphasize the conflict and isolation felt by the narrator because of society’s expectations of him.…
- 2864 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Animals contribute in many ways to our world. We seem to take for granted the benefits animals can have on us. The benefits animals have on our earth shouldn’t be taken for granted. Without animals, our earth would not receive the essential nutrients it needs to flourish. Establishing animal rights will give animals the love and respect that they’ve always deserved. Animal are not pieces of meat, they are a vital resource to the nutriment of our earth. We have been given the power to protect animals and give them rights of their own. We should not ignore the needs of animals. Animals have benefited us in ways no human can. It is our moral duty as humans to take a stand for animals and give them the rights they deserve. At this very moment animals are being abused and carelessly slaughtered. Now is the time to end the abuse of animals and give them the rights that benefits us…
- 1733 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
PROMPT: Write a well organized five paragraph essay explaining the extent to which you agree or disagree with the idea of creating a Bill of Rights for animals. Develop your points by giving reasons, examples, or both from your own experience, observations, and reading.…
- 409 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Animals and other living creatures in this world, share the same right as us to have their own independent existence and modes of living. Edward Freeman in his famous quote regarded to the relationship between humans and animals states “The awful wrongs and suffering forced upon the innocent helpless, faithful animal race forms the blackest chapter in the whole world’s history”. Even though the human race slaughters animals to fulfill resources needed to sustain the population, still is not satisfied with the bounty of products that nature offers, but have got more greedy in over consuming every single part of these poor innocent creatures without necessity. Peter Singer in “Animal Liberation” suggests that human should leave animals alone “as much as…
- 1958 Words
- 8 Pages
Better Essays -
In the essay, “The Case For Animals Rights”, Tom Regan stresses that, “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us- to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sports or money.” As an animal lover, I would never want to intentionally harm or kill any animal without a justifiable cause. But within reason, animals should not be treated equally as human beings. I believe that it is not inhumane for animals to be eaten, surgically manipulated, or exploited for sports and money as long as it is within basic human ethological boundaries.…
- 834 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Determining the rights of non-human animals and deciding how to treat them may not be a choice available to our human society. As an advocate for the rights of animals, Tom Reganʻs three main goals are to abandon the use of animals in any scientific research, discontinue all commercial animal agriculture, and to completely terminate both commercial and sport animal hunting. To support these intentions, Regan argues that every human and non-human animal possesses inherent value, which makes them all more than a physical object or vessel. He then states that possessing inherent value allows every human and non-human to have rights of their own. To further his argument, Regan claims that the any human and non-human retaining rights requires equal treatment and respect from others. To conclude his argument, Regan states that due to these reasons, non-human animals cannot be treated as resources and must be treated by humans as equals. In this paper, I object to Reganʻs third premise, which states that non-human and human animals must be treated as equals and with respect, because our communication barrier with non-human animals restricts us from determining their notion of equal treatment or respect, and that attempting to do so could…
- 990 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays