Do Animals Have Moral Positions?

Answer

Do Animals Have Moral Positions?

            For centuries, non-human animals have been at the edge of man’s moral concept – being accorded and denied moral status under various different scenarios. The diversity of according moral status to animals is evident, even leading to various philosophical thinking being developed; including indirect theories, moral equality theories, and direct but unequal theories. While indirect theory denies an animal the moral position and direct but unequal theory acquaint animals with limited moral status, I believe that non-human animals do have moral positions – more like humans themselves. This paper seeks to argue the proposition that animals do have moral positions.

            As Singer’s utilitarianism argues, animals do have moral equality as that t of humans. First, Singer contends that something has a moral value if it has interest and the same interest is measured if the same thing can tell pleasure and pain. Arguing from this point of view, all non-human animals have a sense of pain and pleasure evident from their expression when under the same feelings. Animals have a tendency of making noise or even crying when under pain as they showcase various happy signs when under pleasure. This insinuates that animals have interest – more like humans – which makes them have a moral position.

            Moreover, non-human animals ought to have rights much like the rest of the humans do. This is also an argument echoed by one Tom Reagan who argues for his case based on the concept of inherent values. Much like Reagan contends, all beings that are subject to life do have inherent values – and thus deserve respect and equal rights. Non-human animals, especially mammals, have characteristics and features that are similar to those of human beings. Reagan argues that both creatures have a sense of perception, desire, memory, and even emotions. These characteristics – that are only attributed to humans – are the foundational building blocks of developing a sense of rights and thus, a moral position.

            What is more, most non-human animals have been proven to have a sense of morality – behaving on the basis of moral motivation. It is right to argue that most animals lack the metacognitive capacities that makes human to be on top of the food chain and that which is necessary for them to be held morally accountable for their behavior. Nonetheless, certain moral motivations may be reasonably be thought to exist within the range of all animal species – including humans. Animals have been proven to have moral emotions such as empathy, kindness, love, tolerance, and even compassion as some of their positive moral. On the other hand, the same animal species have shown anger, malice, and indignation in their relationship. This sense of morality drives the notion that animals do have moral position.

            In conclusion, it is evident that although animals have, for long, been denied their moral status. As this paper has illustrated, animals do possess moral positions and should thus be accorded the same. According to Singer’ utilitarianism, animals should be treated with the same moral equality as humans. What is more, as other philosophers have argued, animals do have rights like humans do, considering their inherent values. Lastly, this paper has argued that animals do have a sense of morality – even though they lack capacities that would render them accountable for their actions. This illustrates that animals have a sense of moral position.