Argument against extension of ethical consideration to non-human animals Essay

In Tom Regans essay The Case for wight Rights, he argues that the root of the wrong is that we treat animals as resources in either advancing our intentions, prerogatives, basic instincts (such(prenominal) as hunger), and so on. He then proceeds by arguing for indirect duties which involve animals though not the type of duty directed towards animals themselves. The involvement of animals in hu composition actions, labeled as either chastely right or morally wrong, points to the claim that hu public beings submit an indirect duty as well towards these animals. Two reasons are raised in opposite word to indirect duties towards animals.First, animals, in contrast to human beings who give birth the capacity to arrive at a given array of fairnesss consciously made by them and render to subscribe by the given set of rules, appear to redeem no sense of morality since morality consists of a set of rules that individuals voluntarily agree to abide by. This is in line with contracta rianism which primarily focuses on the human capability to secure for themselves and decide sets of standards for a systematic morality and firm moral norms. In this case, such presumption excludes the possibility of ever arriving at a morality towards animals for animals slew hardly be a part of a moral system.They do not have the capability to decide on crucial matters which are to define the very system that exit ascribe moral worth on their actions and the exploits they sustain from external agents (Regan, 1985). Nevertheless, Regan essentially argued for an intrinsic worth of animals in comparison to the intrinsic value of human beings, stressing on the argument that the actual wrong is that of treating animals as absolute renewable resources which men use in furthering his ends and sustaining his life.It can be observed in his arguments that he centers on the value of animals regardless of mans expediency of these animals as part of nature. Yet it appears quite dubitable if indeed we are to treat animals under moral circumstances for several reasons. First, man will encounter it hard to sustain his existence if a major overhaul is to be done with regards to his grasp on resources, specifically that of animals. Since the time when man first in condition(p) to utilize the resources available in nature, animals have played a crucial role in his rearing and continued survival.Stretching back through those years, no sense of morality can be rooted for the reason that nature itself, as a whole, provides the essentials for man to go on with life and that morality on the part of animals is a mere social construct. Though it can be argued on the other hand that mans morality may overly be one socially construed fact, it does not, however, directly deny the instance that animals have no sense of morality and that their moral worth is nothing to a greater extent than a perception of a few men.Another argument that must be noted is that, in connection to th e previous claim, animals can hardly be expound as sentient beings. That is, even though animals display reactions indicative of pain or pleasure, such manifestation of feelings are mere human interpretations on the air of animals. This is the part where some of us fail to recognize the fact that more often than not our mere ascriptions of human feelings to the responses of animals, treating both as if they were in accept structure and essence, do not establish the perception that animals are sentient beings as well.What it does is to simply ascribe human-like functions to that of animals while neglecting the basic fact that men have a far more complex consciousness than that of the other animals. Though it can be argued that man, too, are animals themselves as argued by the theory of evolution, nevertheless they have a wide array of distinctions (Calderwood, 2001). These differences fit the purpose of demarcating human consciousness from mere animal behavior such that the animal consciousness bear precise semblance to that of the complexity of mans consciousness.Argument for the extension of ethical consideration to ecosystems Aldo Leopold, in his work The Land Ethic, argues that the ethical doctrines set upon by man in consonance to the treatment towards other people should be extended to land or, more specifically, to ecosystems. He argues further that, as ethical tenets are so designed so as to control the freedom of individuals which may inflict harm towards other individuals, the ethics of man ought to encompass ecosystems as well in order to prolong their sustainability just like the sustenance of mans existence (Leopold, 1989).In fact, the role of ecosystems is of primary significance for the very existence of man can be seen as dependent on nature, and that the abuse of the resources provided for by the natural environment poses a macabre threat to the life of humanity. The imminent consequences of the abasement of ecosystems are real and apparen t. Note that throughout the decades of mans continued industrial improvement whereby the expansion of modern facilities and trade infrastructures have literally displaced ecosystems and have extinguished as well various life forms.Moreover, contemporary times bear witness to the unrelenting wipe-off of various flora and fauna adding even more to the imminent threat to the survival of humanity. It is for these reasons, above any other else, that an ethical doctrine should be established so as to not wholly destroy the possibility of having a totally-diminished ecosystem and prolong its survival but also to sustain, as a direct consequence, the lives of all men.One argument is proposed claiming that there ought to be principles which will proscribe certain acts of men towards ecosystems and which will simultaneously prescribe the ethically upright acts. The furthering of such an argument may very well lead to the accumulation of reasons in preserving what little ecosystem the worl d has left and what little more in the coming years unless several actions are brought under control (Delville, 1997).One argument which can be raised against the claim for extending the ethical doctrines of man so as to include ecosystems is the contention that it is a difficult task, one which entails not only the method of redefining cultures which hold on to contrasting practices to that of what may be ethically prescribed but also the mode of arriving at a comprehensive law for such an extension of ethical norms.Setting aside the latter claim which may be very well stand farfetched in the condition of our discussion, most of mans ethical tenets are strongly rooted on cultural grounds which have incessantly developed throughout generations fashioning it difficult to change the cultural smells quite easily. Aside from the difficulty of surmounting such a feat, there is no clear method on how one can be able to arrive at such an attempt of extending sturdy ethical beliefs.Never theless, the task itself is being called forth not only because there is a lack of limiting principles on the acts of man which may eventually lead to his own demise but also because there is a lack of tribute for the ecosystem in terms of ethical principles. What society barely has are legal measures which do not essentially pin down the heart of the problem. Rather, the measures being proposed by the law are merely written methods that aim at proscribing human actuations in accordance to the laws of man.What is needed is an ethical extension which will, indeed, guide the acts of humanity in dealing with nature and the various ecosystems which men have been utilizing for millions of years already. Argument for deep ecology One central claim for deep ecology is the belief that nature and man are interrelated with one another whereby every individual ought to transform himself which in turn leads to a collective change. This transformation at both the personal level and the communal degree is at the core of a movement which seeks to address the environmental issued besetting the entire population.However, there are at least two primary concepts which might rise into conflict with one anotherfreedom and order. In order that an individual transformation to transpire, there should be at the very least a freedom operating on the basic activities of every man. That is, every individual should function without the apparent hindrances that limit his capabilities in making manifest his earnest desires to support global concerns.Thus, with freedom, man becomes more flexible and more able of acting in accordance to the collective effort of sustaining the environment. On the other hand, a collective change is also of primary necessity since it serves not only as the sum of individual capabilities in addressing the ecologic problems and providing viable solutions to it but also as the embodiment of the general agreement of the individuals. This general agreement is essen tial for the reason that it makes possible the unified efforts to arrive at consolidated methods.However, it can be argued that there may eventually dwell the possibility that with freedom comes the unwanted effects. To a certain degree, giving individuals more and more freedom than perhaps what is necessary or in controlled dosages leads to the probability of abuse, of conferring upon the individual the imminent capacity to either misuse or abuse ones freedom in relegating it to other aspects of life which may consequently bear a harsh effect on the vision being desire by the collective change among the sum of individuals.Nevertheless, even if there remains the potential abuse of such freedom which may in turn retain the collective transformation among the sum of individuals in providing a lending hand in tackling ecological concerns the sense of the collective efforts are far more preponderate its potential weaknesses and negative aspects.