Download Final paper PHIL 2300

Jackie Pendleton
December 7, 2014
Professor Drexler
PHIL 2300
Moral Consideration of Animals
What makes humans the correct species to choose the rights of an animal? Is it the
dominance they possess over the animal world? The intelligence that humans possess? Their
ability to reason and will? What about their ability to experience suffering and pain, love and
happiness? Who is to say that only humans possess these qualities? To say that animals do not
deserve moral consideration and respect, and the right to that of humans is to say that man doesn’t
need to breathe in order to live.
Koko the gorilla is, in many ways, a prodigy of her own species. A gorilla born in captivity
and surrounded by humans, she has the ability to understand, display emotions, learn, and project
thoughts and ideas. In Koko` story, she was able to learn and understand sign language as a means
of communicating to her human companions. Not only was Koko able to learn sign language and
communicate through it, but she was also able to show her depth of intelligence by creating
different signs for words and concepts she was trying to get across to her human friends. When
she reached sexual maturity, she used this sign language to display thoughts and emotional want
for a baby of her own. Koko deserves the same moral consideration provided to humans by
humans.
There are several theorists who support the rights of animals and believe they deserve
moral consideration. Having somewhat varying beliefs and theories, Peter Singer and Tom Regan
are two that explain and provide insight with regard to this. Regan explains his theory on animal
rights by discussing an animal being “the subject of life.” Here he states that being a subject of
life is more than just being alive and breathing, but it is requires being able to experience that life
and having the sense in knowing what is going on around it; what is providing happiness verses
Jackie Pendleton
December 7, 2014
Professor Drexler
PHIL 2300
sadness, and what is provoking those emotions. He adds that even it is born into a situation that is
unhappy and miserable and has never known a different life, the animal is aware that he is
uncomfortable and is able to sense by instinct that this is not a respectable situation. With regard
to Koko, there is definitely sufficient evidence that she has “subject of life” qualities.
A good example of this “subject of life” concept would be the controversy of the Orca
Whales that are held captive in the SeaWorld Parks in several states of the United States. While
one might say that whales whom are born into the life of SeaWorld immediately are subjected to
the tanks of salt water, and perform in front of hundreds of people 2-3 times a day “don’t know
any other way of life” and they are perfectly content, how does one explain their consistent
aggressive, and unhappy behaviors? Trainers who are thought to be the whales’ companions and
life-long friends, suddenly and unexpectedly become targeted victims of violent attacks. The
whales are being fed throughout the day, and are more than taken care of in the sense of hunger
needs. Consequently, they are not attacking and consuming humans on the basis of instinctual
hunger, they are attacking in response to negative emotions and instincts. It is here that Regan
may say that this animal is a “subject of life” and is very well aware that it is uncomfortable,
unhappy, and that the animal deserves to be treated with respect, and not utilized as a tool for
entertainment and financial profit.
Peter Singer draws on utilitarian accounts with regard to animals and moral consideration.
He states that what matters morally is their ability to feel pleasure and pain. He states, “If a being
suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.
No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be
counted equally with the like suffering—in so far as rough comparisons can be made—of any other
Jackie Pendleton
December 7, 2014
Professor Drexler
PHIL 2300
being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is
nothing to be taken into account.” (Singer, All Animals Are Equal p. 107) Singer would accept
Koko into his morale circle; he only draws the line at animals belonging in the moral circle if they
cannot feel suffering or pain.
Another good point of view with regard to animal respect and moral consideration is that
of Paul Taylor. A philosopher best known for his book “Respect for Nature,” Taylor argues that
“superiority only applies to humans” is Anthropocentric. Meaning, that if something is in the
center, it deems to be more important and that perspective is the most valuable. To place humans
in the center as the most valuable is unjustifiable because that is coming from a human’s point of
view and is essentially biased. In his text, “Respect for Nature,” Taylor states, “…why should
standards that are based on human values be assumed to be the only valid criteria of merit and
hence the only true signs of superiority?” (Taylor, Respect for nature p. 80) Taylor provides good
reflection on the concept of humans choosing the rights of non-human animals and how it is
unwarrantable.
Rene Descartes, a philosopher from the 1600s, had a very different view from that of Singer
or Regan on what animals deserved as far as moral consideration was concerned. He believed that
animals did not think and were not conscious. He viewed them as machines; “brutes” to be
mastered, manipulated, and used for various reasons at the will of a human. To say that Koko was
a thinking, emotion-driven animal would have not been on his agenda. Descartes also believed that
because animals were “machines” that in many ways are similar to the human body, they were a
good tool to learn from by studying theirs. This meant that he showed support for animal
experimentation. It is easy to consider if Descartes theories and concepts were due to lack of
Jackie Pendleton
December 7, 2014
Professor Drexler
PHIL 2300
experience and the progression of modern society. It could be possible that because he lived and
researched so long ago, he was not able to see the many developments of animal intelligence, such
as Koko the gorilla, take place.
While there are many beliefs, theories, concepts, and conclusions in relation to the rights
of animals and moral consideration on their behalf, I believe I identify the most with Tom Regan.
I find that I agree with many of his concepts, from his “subject of life” explanation, to his insights
on animal experimentation. I do not believe in the use and practices of animal experimentation. I
believe that utilizing animals to test chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and any other tool looking to be
sold on the market is morally wrong. I don’t not have any respect for the so called “benefits” or
“what we can learn” from the experimentation mentality. I cannot grasp the concept of making a
living, breathing animal suffer for experimental, medical, and financial gain. With the progress
and technology human intelligence has created, there are other ways to test products needing to be
established. I especially agree with Regan`s points and his critique regarding the Cruelty Account
of animal suffering. Even though a human does not like or take joy in harming the animal they are
experimenting on, it doesn’t mean that animal was not harmed, suffered, or wasn’t killed as a
result. What matters was that the rights of animal was violated and the animal was not treated with
respect and dignity.
In the case of Koko the gorilla, no doubt does she belong in the moral circle. Her capacity
of consciousness and reason to will abilities are astounding and completely transparent. While
humans do play a very large and domineering role on the planet, there still needs to be
consideration of all living things. We as a society, nation, and world have an obligation to the
living organisms on this planet to treat them with respect, dignity, and care. Even if the subject
Jackie Pendleton
December 7, 2014
Professor Drexler
PHIL 2300
lacks the ability to recognize its rights, such as a tree or small insect, it still warrants those rights
and considerations.