Frey declares that humans have the freedom to decide what they would like to do with their life and this is a human only capability. They can decide whether they would like to work as a teacher, contractor, lawyer ect. There are varieties of ways to enrich the human life, such as through religion, education, recreation and others. For this reason an animal could never have the quality of life as human. A frog doesn't have the ability to change its mind and live its life as fox; nor can it change its job of catching flies to a new career of catching fish.
Animals and humans are classified into separate categories. A mentally handicapped person in our society has less "value" than a person in the normal state; just as a mouse has less value than a tiger. Everything has an unequal stance in life regardless of whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not. Therefore humans are ranked above animals since they are better agents.
Most would say that human life has more worth than the life of an animal. Frey even asks do people have the right to even assume that their lives are better or worse than animals, since we are different creatures? Humans understand human life not animal life. How can animals have equivalent rights to life as humans when they both do not understand the other? Frey's case holds that the quality of human life is more significant than an animal's life.
Frey, R.G. "Moral Standing, the Value of Lives and Speciesism." Ethics in Practice. Ed. Hugh Lafollette. Blackwell Publishers:1997
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Machan presents an argument that animals are not entitled to the same rights and liberations that humans…
- 534 Words
- 3 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 deserve to be treated with love and care just like any other species.” True. However, to what extent are we willing to be compared to animals? In the article “A Change of Heart About Animals” Jeremy Rifkin sells the idea that science proves everyday that we aren’t much different from any other animal therefore he believes that, just like humans, animals should have a bill of rights. I say this is too extreme and completely unnecessary.…
- 365 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Humans and animals are two different things; however, they can be the same. We consider ourselves different from animals because we don’t walk on all fours, don’t eat off the ground, we have manners, we know the difference between right and wrong, and we have free will. Although, animals have the ability to do what they want when they want,…
- 353 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Animals deserve rights because just like humans, they feel excruciating pain, suffer and have feelings. One would argue that animals don’t experience emotions? But the answer is of course they do. It is emotions that allow animals to display various behavior patterns. According to the theory of utilitarianism, all sentient beings should be given consideration in the society and this includes both animals and humans. Also, animals cannot speak for themselves and for this reason they should be treated equally, protected and given the same respect as human beings. Peter singer’s approach also supports the argument on equal consideration in that animals deserve the same respect as human beings but just in a different view. In today’s society humans exploit animals for milk, meat, fur, scientific experimentation etc. and animals are constantly injured or killed. Their pain and sufferings should be taken into consideration, as this unjust treatment is morally unacceptable. Similarly speciesism is an…
- 476 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Perhaps the most important rhetorical aspect of each paper is the overall structure and order of the author’s ideas as they present their opinions and their purpose to the audience. Throughout Speciesism and Moral Status, Singer presents his information in a very specific way, beginning with the controversial statement that not all humans are above animals, and that there should be a…
- 1472 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
First of all, one of the reasons that humans should be in a separate category from non-human animals is that human beings are conscious and can choose courses of action (Alger and Alger). Human beings are capable of taking wise decisions by using their judgement. On the other hand, the other animals are not conscious and operate only on instinct (Alger and Alger).…
- 734 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
2. In “Animal Liberation”, Peter Singer argues that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He believes that a lot of our modern practices are speciesist, and that they hold our best interest above all else. The only animals that we give equal consideration are humans. He questions our reasonings for giving equal consideration to all members to our species, because, some people are more superior than others, in terms of intelligence or physical strength. Humans value themselves over…
- 1055 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
i. Singer stresses the fact that the principle of utility gives animals moral standing, and gives their interests equal weight with the like interest of humans, but denies animals this equal moral standing.…
- 779 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The author argues inherent value. Regan points out animals should be able to experience life with inherent value of their own. Addressing commercial animal agriculture, the author declares "The fundamental moral wrong here is not that animals are kept in stressful close confinement or in isolation, or that their pain and suffering, their needs and preferences are ignored or discounted." Regan continues the only way to right the wrong would be to stop…
- 684 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In Peter Singers All Animals Are Equal, he claims we should give the same respect the lives of non human animals as we give the lives of humans and that all animals human and non-human are in fact equal. I agree with him because there is no reason as to why animals should not get the same rights and respect as us. Animals have interest, when these are similar to ours, or their pain is on a similar level why give them less consideration. All human and animals have similar feelings such as loving something or feeling pain when they get hurt. I agree with Singer in what he says when animals should be given the same respect and treated equally.…
- 759 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Animals are species of this earth too and they shouldn't be treated like they are any less than humans. People don't realize what animals go through because animals are tortured and treated harshly behind doors, which is the reason humans don't understand their pain. If people were exposed to how animals get treated and how they get slaughtered they would know that it's wrong because they have rights just like humans do. Pollan emphasizes that equality between animals and humans is important when he writes, "To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he's not human is no different from excluding the slave simply because he's not white" (Pollan 207). Animals are usually not talked about when it comes to equality because they aren't the same as humans, which is wrong because just cause animals are different than humans doesn't necessarily mean their existence or interest is not relevant.…
- 903 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Rifkin explained in his editorial that animals had not that many differences from humans and that we should care for them more. That is why I agree because animals have the exact same feelings as we do. And mainly theres some animals that’s are wild which are diferent from other animals. Humans care for their animals because animals need love and empathy. That is why animals should be…
- 347 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
Although humans and animals have similar anatomies the two are completely different. Animals are not capable to think like humans and do the same things as humans like talking for example. Animals can’t communicate how would they be able to know what they can and can’t do in the society? Humans are given rights because they are somewhat responsible, but animals have no sense of responsibility because they have no duties in their…
- 996 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The first premise of his argument was that all human and non-human animals possess equal inherent value because they are all individuals experiencing life. His second premise is that possessing inherent value demands that these individuals have rights that should not be violated by others. The final premise of his argument is that any individual with rights must be treated equally and with respect. In this paper, I objected to his third premise by arguing that we humans should not interact with animals at all because we are not able to distinguish their perception of equality and…
- 990 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays