Utilitarianism Position On The Duties To Animals' Debate: Surname 1

Surname 1
Name
Professor
Title
Date
Utilitarianism position on the duties to animals debate
Utilitarianism, as established by Jeremy Bentham, provides that people should engage
in acts which promote happiness and pleasure. They should also do acts that are moral and
those that do not cause any pain. The utilitarian position of the duty to animals would thus be
the protection of animals from harm. As argued by Roger Scruton, animals provide many
things to human beings not limited to food and company. However, a utilitarian position
would be that we still have duties towards animals since the fall under our charity and this all
depends on the relationship that we have with them. We rely on them as pets, domestic
animals, and as wild creatures.
Human beings should thus not ignore animal feelings just because of the fact that they
are not conscious beings. Animals are also culpable to pain, hunger and suffering only for the
fact that they cannot express these feelings as human beings do. No animals should thus be
treated with priority in comparison to others merely based on nature since this is a
discrimination, which according to utilitarianism, causes pain to the animals. Animals should
therefore not be used for laboratory tests, as there are alternatives that human beings can use
in place.
The happiness of animals is curtailed once animals are forced into certain forms of
upbringing such as confinement to cages, slaughtering, branding, castration, and
transportation. Under utilitarianism, if the processes under which animals are raised and later
transformed into food cause stress and frustration to animals, they are not worthwhile.
Surname 2
Human beings, therefore, have duties to animals to ensure that if animals are to be used for
food production at all, then the processes that they are subjected to should be at the very least
natural. This means that cattle have to be allowed to graze in their natural settings and are not
be confined for the purposes of being fattened.
Furthermore, under utilitarianism, animals should not be treated as inferiors as
compared to people. Animals via various analyses have been proved to have similar traits to
human beings such as being able to learn, use tools in their activities, and use some forms of
language to communicate. Chimpanzees have successfully been taught the sign language,
gorillas in Tanzanian jungles are capable of making sponges by chewing leaves, and there
have been scientific discoveries that whales and dolphins engage in some form of verbal
communication. Some animals, such as primates, based on the Darwinian theories, have the
same ancestry as human beings. On the same argument, primates have the same anatomical
composition as human beings. Morality, based on utilitarianism, provides that it is not good
to take the life of ones for the sake of others.
Kantianism position on the duties to animals
Kant moral theory provides that the rightness or wrongness of an action does not
depend on the repercussions but as to whether it fulfills the rightful duty. Kants theory is
based on the idea that rational being should be respected. In a view of this theory, Kantian
position on animals may be regarded as opposite to that of utilitarianism. Hence, the debate
is, largely, anti-animal.
Kantianism thus supports the proposition that animals can be used in research as long
as the end results are for the benefit of rational beings. The rational beings, as noted by Roger
Scruton, are conscious beings, and this is what humans fall under. Kantianism hence supports
the imposition of tests on animals i.e. tests such as the LD50 and Draize Test on rabbits. The
Surname 3
repercussion that the tests may have on the animals does not matter if the end results are to
fulfill the rightful duty of saving thousands or millions of people suffering from diseases.
The rightful duty that Kantianism supports could have different interpretations, and
this all levels down to anti-animal position. The rightful duty can be rightful to make profits
for the company, providing food to human beings at the lowest price, discovery of medicines
that can heal human maladies amongst other activities. All of these can be termed as moral
depending on the context. Kantianism thus supports all manner of negative acts being
committed against animals as long as the end result is to perform a rightful duty to conscious
beings.
My position
My choice would be a combination of both utilitarianism and Kantianism. This is for
the reason that under utilitarianism, it has been proved that there are alternatives to animals in
carrying out research. It is also immoral to harass animals and force them to be brought up in
a stressful environment for selfish purposes such as profits. They should be allowed to grow
and/or be developed in their natural settings. Under the Kantian approach, Animals can be
utilized for food; however, they have to be raised without suffering. It would be very difficult
to know what animals have been brought up without suffering.

Utilitarianism Position On The Duties To Animals' Debate: Surname 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utilitarianism Position On The Duties To Animals' Debate: Surname 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utilitarianism Position On The Duties To Animals' Debate: Surname 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surname 1

Utilitarianism position on the duties to animals debate

Utilitarianism, as established by Jeremy Bentham, provides that people should engage

animals, and as wild creatures.

upbringing such as confinement to cages, slaughtering, branding, castration, and

be confined for the purposes of being fattened.

Furthermore, under utilitarianism, animals should not be treated as inferiors as

to take the life of ones for the sake of others.

Kantianism position on the duties to animals

is, largely, anti-animal.

My choice would be a combination of both utilitarianism and Kantianism. This is for

to know what animals have been brought up without suffering.

You might also like