Debate: Should Animals have the same rights as humans?

[Werther]

Thinkers like Renee Descartes argued how animals lack conscience, essentially being machines with no moral compass. A less extreme view says that animals are conscious, but it is so limited compared to human conscience. Although for an Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, the moral delimitations based on animal traits is totally arbitrary. In his book, „Animal Liberation” (1975) says that humans suffer from a form of „speciesism”, in other words, the existence of the idea of animals lacking the level of conscience humans have and should not receive a similar moral consideration.

Based on such idea, we may find reasonable for animals not sharing some rights, such as the right to vote being wasted on a cat, yet is it not a right wasted to humans incapable of taking rational decisions? Despite such circumstance, we do consider different those individuals from us. Clearly we are inconsistent in applying speciesism, however, the Singer's principle of equality should not be attributed based on conscience or intelligence, but on the capacity to feel pain or suffering.

Recognizing the capacity of animals to feel pain is a moral characteristic similar to humans as well. According to another philosophical theory, the moral actions are those that increase pleasure and diminishes pain, initially known as hedonism, but later popularized by Jeremy Bentham as utilitarianism, philosophy supporting the idea that only intrinsic good is offering pleasure and the only intrinsic evil is inflicting pain. Concluding that inflicting pain on humans or animals is bad.
Thank you for your patience in reading, as a reward, a random kind doe.

Doe by Travis Schlaht

[DarlBundren]

Thinkers like Renee Descartes argued how animals lack conscience, essentially being machines with no moral compass. A less extreme view says that animals are conscious, but it is so limited compared to human conscience. Although for an Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, the moral delimitations based on animal traits is totally arbitrary.

In order to speak about morality we need to speak about interests. Non-sentient beings don't have interests to be addressed whatsoever. It's the difference between kicking a dog and kicking a rock. Singer agrees that animals are less conscious than human beings (and that some animals are more conscious than others), but that their being less conscious is not a good reason to disregard their interests.

In his book, „Animal Liberation” (1975) says that humans suffer from a form of „speciesism”, in other words, the existence of the idea of animals lacking the level of conscience humans have and should not receive a similar moral consideration.

Yes, speciesm is a bias against animals from other species. Vegans don't claim that men and animals are equally sentient, they claim that belonging to a different species is not a morally relevant feature.

Based on such idea, we may find reasonable for animals not sharing some rights, such as the right to vote being wasted on a cat, yet is it not a right wasted to humans incapable of taking rational decisions?

Yes, it is. Kids and cognitive-impaired people don't have the right to vote.

Despite such circumstance, we do consider different those individuals from us. Clearly we are inconsistent in applying speciesism, however, the Singer's principle of equality should not be attributed based on conscience or intelligence, but on the capacity to feel pain or suffering.

Singer is a utilitarian hedonist, that means that he does take suffering into consideration. Being sentient is just the prerequisite to have moral value. Things don't have value in themselves; it's sentient beings who attribute value to them.

Concluding that inflicting pain on humans or animals is bad.

Pain is not bad per se, pain is bad as opposed to pleasure. As a kick in the butt is better than a bullet in the stomach.

To be more precise, it's interests we are talking about. If you are a masochist it's not pain you want to avoid. If you are a navy seal you are ready to endure a lot of suffering in order to achieve your goal. It's your interests that matter, and morality has to do with the interests (or pleasure - as Singer claims) of sentient beings.

[Werther]

Indeed, we are talking about interests and it was just a general conclusion on how humans and animals should be treated equally. Of course, humans are more complex since in the case of masochism taking on a role of subjugation and helplessness can offer a release from stress or the burden of responsibility or guilt. It can also evoke infantile feelings of dependency, safety, and protection, which can serve as a proxy for intimacy. In addition, the masochist may derive pleasure from earning the approval of the sadist, commanding his full attention, and, in a sense, controlling him.

Yet, by interest I imagine you mean psychological egoism which is quite controversial, the reflection on one's own actions may reveal their motives and intended results to be based on self-interest. And the psychological egoists and hedonists have found through numerous observations of natural human behavior that behavior can be manipulated through reward and punishment both of which have direct effects of pain and pleasure. Unfortunately, animals lack such complexity, but I tried through my arguments to state the reasons why animals deserve compassion, despite our self-interest.

[Greatest I am]

Thinkers like Renee Descartes argued how animals lack conscience, essentially being machines with no moral compass. A less extreme view says that animals are conscious, but it is so limited compared to human conscience. Although for an Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, the moral delimitations based on animal traits is totally arbitrary. In his book, „Animal Liberation” (1975) says that humans suffer from a form of „speciesism”, in other words, the existence of the idea of animals lacking the level of conscience humans have and should not receive a similar moral consideration.

Based on such idea, we may find reasonable for animals not sharing some rights, such as the right to vote being wasted on a cat, yet is it not a right wasted to humans incapable of taking rational decisions? Despite such circumstance, we do consider different those individuals from us. Clearly we are inconsistent in applying speciesism, however, the Singer's principle of equality should not be attributed based on conscience or intelligence, but on the capacity to feel pain or suffering.

Recognizing the capacity of animals to feel pain is a moral characteristic similar to humans as well. According to another philosophical theory, the moral actions are those that increase pleasure and diminishes pain, initially known as hedonism, but later popularized by Jeremy Bentham as utilitarianism, philosophy supporting the idea that only intrinsic good is offering pleasure and the only intrinsic evil is inflicting pain. Concluding that inflicting pain on humans or animals is bad.
Thank you for your patience in reading, as a reward, a random kind doe.

Doe by Travis Schlaht

Should Animals have the same rights as humans?

Life, feed off of death.

If we are to give human rights to animals and treat them as we treat each other, then you open the door to Soylent Green and cannibalism.

Regards
DL

[DarlBundren]

Indeed, we are talking about interests and it was just a general conclusion on how humans and animals should be treated equally.

'Treated' as in 'they should have the same rights'?
I meant equal consideration of interests. I don't think that non-human animals and human animals should have the same legal rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_consideration_of_interests

Yet, by interest I imagine you mean psychological egoism which is quite controversial,

No, on the contrary. Don't be misled by the word 'hedonist'. I'm talking about ethics, I'm talking about addressing other people's preferences/interests.

Suppose there are two people who both want to eat a cookie. We know that the first person has already eaten a whole bag of cookies, while the other person has been starving for days. If we consider their interests equally (disregarding irrelevant traits such as the color of their skin or how good-looking they are, for example), we come to the conclusion that it's the starving man the one who should get the cookie.

the reflection on one's own actions may reveal their motives and intended results to be based on self-interest.

Yes, but in that case we would not be talking about ethics.

I tried through my arguments to state the reasons why animals deserve compassion, despite our self-interest.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Interests/preferences are what we address when we talk about ethics, but we don't simply promote ours. That's just egoism.

[Werther]

My apologies, when you said „interests” in your first argument I thought you meant as psychological hedonism, especially since you gave an example from masochism. While ethics is set of moral principles which tend to suggest aspects of universal fairness and the question of whether or not an action is responsible, yet what can it be considered as being ethical or not?

Immanuel Kant would say that the moral value is determined by whether or not you are motivated by duty, as for John Stuart Mill would say that it is determined by the sum of happiness offered and based on the number of people. By duty, if it means to save someone from drowning and you fail, then your action is considered good and the consequences for your failure is irrelevant.

In order to determine the value of your moral action, you must observe the person's will which followed the action. And good being expressed through the duty of action, Kant naming this phenomenon as Categorical Imperative, a self-law, a command or conscience which dictates and when we act from duty, we proceed in the correct manner based on the self-respect, as rational and law-giving beings.

Mill, on the other hand, considers happiness and not rationality is the basis of morality and through happiness means pleasure and lack of pain, but what if both theories are just delusions, only a sophisticated method to assert preferences, everything is relative and the idea of evil is just an indifference towards good?

[DarlBundren]

While ethics is set of moral principles which tend to suggest aspects of universal fairness and the question of whether or not an action is responsible, yet what can it be considered as being ethical or not?

I' m not sure if I understand your question, Werther. Could you re-word it differently, please?

By duty, if it means to save someone from drowning and you fail, then your action is considered good and the consequences for your failure is irrelevant.

I don't think that the consequences of your actions are irrelevant, quite the opposite. Of course, if you tried to save the drowning person you probably did the right thing even if the person eventually died. But suppose for a second that that one person was Hitler. Would the right thing to do have been different?

In order to determine the value of your moral action, you must observe the person's will which followed the action. And good being expressed through the duty of action, Kant naming this phenomenon as Categorical Imperative, a self-law, a command or conscience which dictates and when we act from duty, we proceed in the correct manner based on the self-respect, as rational and law-giving beings

Kant thought that there was a moral law that we could discover through reason. That is, a universal maxim that applies to everybody in every circumstance. What he proposed was “you should act so that the maxim of your action can be a universal law” - what you called the categorical imperative.

So for example, we think that lying is wrong and we say something like 'you should never lie'. One possible problem though, is that if I say something like that I could easily find a situation where 'lying' is the right thing to do. Suppose there's a psychopath who wants to kill an innocent family. The family asks you for help and you hide them in you house. Now the psychopath comes and asks you where the family is. What are you going to do?

Now, of course you can try to make the maxim more workable, but the question is, how specific are you going to make it? You could even try to make a maxim that describes yourself up to the last detail and says that you are allowed to steal if you want. That would be another problem.

What I think is valuable here, is the idea that ethics should be universal. But, by that I mean something slightly different: I mean that we can't tailor moral maxims for ourselves, we should take everyone's interests into consideration. In other words, it should not be arbitrary. We cannot say ' we can kill animals because they are not humans' without trying to explain what's so special about being a human being.

Mill, on the other hand, considers happiness and not rationality is the basis of morality and through happiness means pleasure and lack of pain,

What do you mean by 'not rationality''?

but what if both theories are just delusions, only a sophisticated method to assert preferences, everything is relative and the idea of evil is just an indifference towards good?

Hehe you could try to prove it. There has recently been a debate with a guy who thought that objective reality doesn't exist. You may want to take a look at it.