Mcmahan's Argument For Nonhuman Animal Rights
Nonanimal humans do not have the same rights regarding what defines rights as they are to us humans. Alternatively, nonhuman animals should not be subject to less of a right as we are simply because they do not have the same psychological characteristics that humans have. So where do the rights of nonhuman animals lie to maintain morality in those animals’ own lives? In this paper, I aim to show that nonhuman animal’s rights should count as human rights.
To begin, McMahan believes that nonhuman animals do not have rights, but instead they have interests. According to him, rights to nonhuman animals are not the same as the rights towards human beings. He highlights that “an animal's rights might be overridden when it is necessary to kill it …show more content…
He defines interests as the nonhuman animals’ interest to live and not be killed throughout their lifetime. He feels as if that is achieved somehow since they are given a good life before benign carnivorism is practiced. McMahan explains that benign carnivorism occurs when animals are prepared for human consumption but under humane conditions. He believes that justifies the practice since the animals’ lives were good, and without it they wouldn’t have existed at …show more content…
He believes that this practice is justified by a couple points. For one of those points, he states, “They would not have existed if not for the practice of benign carnivorism... it is that far fewer animals with lives worth living would have existed in the absence of the practice” (McMahan, 68). Bringing up that argument, he believes that the practice is good because it gives them a means of life, which is good. The good in this example outweighs the bad, which makes the practice plausible.
While explaining the justification for the nonhuman animals’ benefit, he also calls attention to how humans benefit from the practice. McMahan emphasizes the pleasure that is obtained from eating nonhuman animals, which is greater than that of food derived from plants. The pleasure that is attained from it feeds into the interests of twenty people that it could have for a couple minutes, which he explains is why it outweighs that animal’s life.
On the other hand, Regan goes against McMahan’s argument about nonhuman animals not having rights. He emphasizes that the reason we are given the rights to exploit, manipulate, and view animals as our resources is because of the system. It is the fundamental wrong of the system that lets us believe they exist for us and that we do not need to worry about the animals
To begin, McMahan believes that nonhuman animals do not have rights, but instead they have interests. According to him, rights to nonhuman animals are not the same as the rights towards human beings. He highlights that “an animal's rights might be overridden when it is necessary to kill it …show more content…
He defines interests as the nonhuman animals’ interest to live and not be killed throughout their lifetime. He feels as if that is achieved somehow since they are given a good life before benign carnivorism is practiced. McMahan explains that benign carnivorism occurs when animals are prepared for human consumption but under humane conditions. He believes that justifies the practice since the animals’ lives were good, and without it they wouldn’t have existed at …show more content…
He believes that this practice is justified by a couple points. For one of those points, he states, “They would not have existed if not for the practice of benign carnivorism... it is that far fewer animals with lives worth living would have existed in the absence of the practice” (McMahan, 68). Bringing up that argument, he believes that the practice is good because it gives them a means of life, which is good. The good in this example outweighs the bad, which makes the practice plausible.
While explaining the justification for the nonhuman animals’ benefit, he also calls attention to how humans benefit from the practice. McMahan emphasizes the pleasure that is obtained from eating nonhuman animals, which is greater than that of food derived from plants. The pleasure that is attained from it feeds into the interests of twenty people that it could have for a couple minutes, which he explains is why it outweighs that animal’s life.
On the other hand, Regan goes against McMahan’s argument about nonhuman animals not having rights. He emphasizes that the reason we are given the rights to exploit, manipulate, and view animals as our resources is because of the system. It is the fundamental wrong of the system that lets us believe they exist for us and that we do not need to worry about the animals