Moral theories on Animal Rights

Moral Theories on Animal Rights

Moral theories on animal rights have been a huge subject on the global stage for over two
decades now. The issue of whether animals, just like humans, should have rights has also raised
issues, as more individuals have argued whether animals have rights that should be adhered to or
maintained. For a very long time, animals have often been used as a source of food for most of
the population as they are known to provide one very vital ingredient, protein. Again, animals
have also been liable to different kinds of abuse, often leading to death. According to research, it
is evident that about 70 billion animals die yearly as a result of human activities, which have
often revolved around food.
Nonetheless, it is also evident that animals have many animals lose their lives each day in
scientific laboratories each year, as scientists use them for various research studies, which have
often ended in their losing their lives (Killoren & Streiffer, 2020). Similarly, it is also evident
that about 110 million animals lose their lives in laboratories every year as scientists intend to
find a breakthrough in the field of medicine. The most affected animals are mice, frogs, dogs,
rabbits, monkeys, fish, and birds. The increased animal cruelty by scientists has raised the global
alarm of environmentalists and wildlife organizations, which have now moved forward to find
ways that would prove critical in ending the disaster. The United States alone is known to kill
about 110 million animals a year in experiments that do not bear any fruit in most cases.
Increased rates of animal cruelty have led to the rise of lots of premises that now focus on
the moral theories of animal rights. Animal rights, therefore, refer to the belief that the most
basic interests of nonhuman animals should be given the same consideration as the similar

3
interests of human beings. These interests include the preference for continued life over death;
avoidance of pain over the infliction of pain; and the preference for certain kinds of experiences
over others. In general, animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be regarded as
property or resources to be exploited by humans. In contrast, animal welfare advocates maintain
that animals should be treated humanely but do not necessarily believe that animals have the
same moral status as humans (Thomas, 2020).
Similarly, the issue of animal rights has brought lots of controversy around the globe as
some individuals argue that animals should be treated properly and not be used for the benefit of
humankind without their consent. This includes things like using animals for food,
entertainment, or experimentation. For instance, the quote “By ceasing to rear and kill animals
for food, we can make so much extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it
would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human
Liberation too.” Plays a role in helping individuals understand the role of animals in the society.
Animal rights activists believe that all animals should be treated with respect and that their
interests should be considered when making decisions about them (Killoren & Streiffer, 2020).
To counter the threats to animal rights, scholars such as Peter Singer and Kant have come up
with theories that would now prove vital in ensuring that animal rights are conserved around the
globe. Therefore, the premises widely mentioned on animals' rights include Singer's Utilitarian
theory, rights theory, Kantian theories, and Cartesian theories.
Singer’s Utilitarian Theory

Singer's Utilitarian Theory and Animal Rights present a unique perspective on the ethical
debate. The premise now primarily dwells on the issue of animal rights and why they should be
conserved in our society today. According to Singer, the term "utilitarian" proves vital in his

4
premise as it mainly advocates that individuals should always strive to perform or engage in acts
that primarily foster happiness and pleasure as opposed to actions that would majorly cause
sadness or harm. When evaluating the impacts of our actions, we must consider the aspirations of
living creatures and assess any negative impact on those aspirations as part of the outcomes of
our actions. Singer asserts that humans have stalled in doing so due to a species' prejudices, or
social Darwinism, which eventually results in a methodical deleveraging of animal aspirations.
Singer contends that social Darwinism is morally equivalent to r


Place your order