Home » Uncategories » Reasons Why Animals Should Not Be Treated Like Humans

Reasons Why Animals Should Not Be Treated Like Humans

Animal welfare experts warn our pets could suffer during the coronavirus pandemic, including from abuse or abandonment.

When we hear nigh animals being neglected, nosotros're frequently outraged. Consider the revelation of the mistreatment of racehorses at a Queensland slaughterhouse, or the human being who decapitated a kookaburra. These stories left many of us shocked and appalled.

But harm to animals is mutual in our club. Tens of billions of animals are killed in farms and slaughterhouses every year. Their deaths are sometimes truly horrific. Humanity's relationship with animals is dysfunctional: humans honey animals yet simultaneously perpetrate extreme violence confronting them. This is non merely bad for animals. It's bad for the states too.

But humans and animals cannot simply end their relationship and part ways. We have to share a world. So we have to forge a meliorate relationship. The hard question is: what shape should that new relationship take?

Alert: graphic content.

Differing standards for humans and for animals?

Here'south an ethics thought experiment. Five humans are dying of organ failure. The but style to salve their lives is to impale one salubrious person, harvest their organs, and transplant these into the 5 dying people. Is it morally acceptable to impale the ane to save the many?

If you're like most people, your answer is a firm "no". Humans have a right to life and can't be killed in service of the greater good. This is an example of what's known as a deontological judgment.

Just at present let's alter the scenario. Suppose y'all are the manager of a sanctuary for chickens. An infectious virus is spreading through the sanctuary and you have to make up one's mind whether to kill one infected chicken or let the virus to spread throughout the sanctuary, killing a larger number. At present what?

When confronted with the chicken scenario, many will say it'south acceptable to kill the one to save the many. Your responsibleness equally manager of the sanctuary is to promote the aggregate health and well-being of all the chickens in your care. If this means you take to impale one chicken to save many more than, so be it. This is an example of what'south known as a commonsensical judgment.

When we retrieve about cases where creature lives are at stake, we oftentimes tend to think in utilitarian terms. When we think about cases where human lives are at stake, nosotros ofttimes tend to call back in deontological terms.

Several chickens outside a coop — Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, when information technology comes to chickens? Shutterstock/zlikovec

Beast activists put to the examination

Even animal activists, committed to a view of animals and humans as moral equals, may exist inclined to come across animals and humans from these differing perspectives.

At an beast activist conference in Melbourne final yr (before the pandemic) nosotros divided the audience into small-scale groups and gave them dissimilar scenarios featuring different species.

Only 35% of those because chicken cases said it was wrong to impale i chicken to save the many, whereas fully 85% of those considering human cases decided it was wrong to kill ane human being to save the many. An informal experiment, merely it seems to illustrate a very human tendency to call up of animals and humans according to unlike standards.

That tendency has been observed in many contexts. Robert Nozick influentially discusses a bifurcated view along these lines in his 1974 classic Anarchy, Land, and Utopia. Only the question of whether such a view can exist attributed to ordinary people is just recently being rigorously studied past psychologists such equally Lucius Caviola at Harvard University.

Across psychological research, we can look to institutions for prove that this sort of bifurcated view is widespread, as we have argued elsewhere.

For case, when animals are used in scientific experimentation, researchers are mainly expected to show the benefits outweigh the costs: a utilitarian standard.

Merely when humans are used, characteristically deontological considerations, such as consent and autonomy, are brought to acquit; a price-do good analysis isn't enough.

And so nosotros tend to exist more than utilitarian about animals than nigh humans. Yet we also don't see all animals from a purely utilitarian perspective. Recollect nearly your family dog. Would your censor let you to kill her to save five other dogs?

A small mouse in the hands of someone wearing medical protection gloves. — We utilize animals in scientific research. Shutterstock/unoL

Three perspectives

The upshot: humans seem to exist capable of seeing animals in at least iii very different ways.

Commencement, nosotros're able to regard animals as objects that exist solely for the sake of our use and enjoyment and that don't matter in themselves. For an instance, consider the fashion the angling industry treats bycatch every bit disposable.

Second, we're able to regard animals as beings who matter in themselves however who are fundamentally interchangeable with others. That'south a utilitarian perspective. It's the perspective you occupy when you endorse killing 1 squealer to relieve 5. Such a view is defended by world-renowned Australian philosopher Peter Vocaliser, among many others.

Third, we're able to see animals as beings who not only matter in themselves, just who also accept rights, such every bit the correct to life, or the right to bodily integrity, or even the right to liberty.

Mayhap information technology's strange to see farmed animals that fashion, but information technology'southward not and then foreign to run across non-human family members such as cats and dogs in that way. And famous philosophers such as Tom Regan have argued a vast range of animals ought to be seen in that fashion.

The future of human-animal relations

Currently, many of united states of america see near animals equally mere things, the way fishermen typically see bycatch. And this might keep into the future.

But that'd be a tragedy. Despite their differences from humans, animals are conscious individuals with their own welfare, and then practise matter in themselves. Recognising this will be an essential pace in reducing the tremendous corporeality of unnecessary suffering and death that humans inflict on animals.

The simple recognition that animals are not mere things is in itself of massive importance, but information technology's also only the get-go of the piece of work we have ahead of us. As a society nosotros must face up deep and difficult questions almost whether animals take moral rights and, if so, what those rights might be, and how (if at all) their rights differ from those of human beings. Philosophers accept been debating such questions for decades but haven't reached consensus (all the same).

Such questions must be addressed earlier we can nosotros hope to find a new relationship with animals that fully recognises and respects our obligations to them.