Does Equity Principle Matter To Animals In What Ways On What Basis Might Discrimination Against Some Animas Be Justified

Does Equity Principle Matter To Animals? In What Ways? On What Basis Might Discrimination Against Some Animas Be Justified?

INTRODUCTION

The principle of equality implies that our concern for others out not to relies on how they behave, or what abilities they posses. It is on this line that we cannot exploit members of our race nor ignore the interest of the less intelligent people in our society. However, this principle also does apply to other non-human species and that since animals are not members of our species we have a right to exploit them. Similarly, the fact that some animals are less intelligent than we are does not mean that their interests cannot be regarded. Thus, the debate of whether to extent the equity principle to animals starts with having a clear understanding of the nature of the principle of equal consideration of interests (LESLEY J ROGERS 2004).

In fact some classical thinkers like Jeremy Bentham alluded to the equality principle. In his doctrine of ‘modern utilitarianism’, Bentham advocated for equal consideration of interests in some form or other as a basic just principle (Bentham 1876). That the number of legs, the colour and texture of the skin or the termination of the os sacrum are not enough reasons to abandon a sensitive being to the same fate

Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as a reason enough to make humans and non-human species like animals to be entitled to equal consideration. He asserts that, the capacity for suffering and enjoyment is not just another characteristic like the capacity to learn a new language or to better grades is school. This capacity is actually a requirement to having interests of all kind, a condition that should be dealt with before thinking of interests in any meaningful way. Just as a young boy does not enjoy pain the mouse also does not like being tormented. If any being of any kind suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what nature of being, the principle of equality requires that the suffering be counted equally with the like suffering of any other being. If a living thing is cannot be subjected to suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment and happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account.

Commonly, racists violate the principle of equality by being biased with regard to the interests of their own racial beings by turning a blind eye to interests of others races especially when there is a clash of interest. Pain is as bad when it is felt by dogs or cats as when it is felt by humans. How bad a pain is, depends on how long it lasts and the intensity, but pains of same duration and intensity are equally bad, whether felt by humans or animals.

Though we can never directly experience the pain of another being, whether that being is human or not we can feel it. Just as a human being cries when in animals in pain act in much similar way as humans behave, and their actions is adequate explanation for the certainty that they undergo pain. With the exception of those apes that have been taught to communicate by sign language, animals like young children cannot actually say that they are feeling pain. However the two groups when in pain find other ways to make their inner states apparent. It is on this regard that we contend that animals and not plants- we cannot observe behaviour suggesting pain for and they also do not have a centrally organized nervous system like animals and human beings- deserve a right to the principle of equal consideration.

OBJECTIONS TO PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY

Despite the above argument however, there are many objections as to whether animals should be treated like humans and this objections arise from the several differences between humans and animals. These differences in turn do justify the discrepancy in the scope of rights that each species has access to. Such that as much as we may thumb our chest and call out for equality between humans and animals, the existing differences among them make the process of bridging the gap almost impossible. For instance, most non-human animals are used as food stuffs in a number of households. This is perhaps the oldest and the most widespread form of animal use ad as being justified even biblically at God created animals for our pleasure and convenience.

If animals count in their own right, then our day to day animal meat use becomes doubtful particularly when animal meat is a comfort rather than a requirement. Eskimos existing in surroundings where they must slaughter animals for food or starve may be justified in claiming that their interest in existing supersedes that of the animals they slaughter. In fact, most of us cannot defend our diet in this way. In view of the ethics of the use of animal flesh for human food in industrialized societies, we are considering a situation in which a relatively minor human interest must be balanced against the lives and welfare of the animals involved. This contradicts the principle of equal consideration of interests which does not allow major interests to be sacrificed for minor interests. Therefore, to avoid speciesism against animals we must stop these practices, which mean that we should not eat chicken, pork or beef; unless we know that the meat we are eating was not produced by factory farm methods. It is also correct in the context of eggs, unless they are specifically sold as ‘free range’.

The matter of performing experiments on animals also raises questions on the equality principle. Here the issue stands out blatantly, because experimenters often seek to substantiate doing experiments on animals by alleging that the experiments direct us to discoveries about humans; if this is so, the experimenter must concur that both human and nonhuman animals are same in vital areas. For example, if forcing a rat to decide between ravenous to death and passage on electrified network to get food tells us whatever thing about the feelings of humans to stress, we must presume that the rat encounters stress in this kind of situation. From the above, and may other examples we acknowledge that animals and humans do not have a fair treatment to equal consideration. Because if it were so, then humans would also have been used as experiment samples, but since human life is observed to be more critical and precious they are favoured.

Mark you, not all experiments can be defended on the basis that they alleviate more misery than they cause. Since humans have more reasoning capacity and power virtually over all animals they force them into conditions of their choice in a bid to prove or test what they want. In these cases, and many others like them, the benefits to humans are either non-existent or very uncertain; while the losses to members of other species are certain and real (O’Sullivan 2011). Moreover, if experiments are not prepared to use orphaned humans with harsh and permanent intellect damage, their willingness to use nonhuman animals like apes, monkeys, dogs and cats among others indicate biasness on the basis of species alone. Yet these nonhuman animals are more intelligent, more aware of what is happening to them, and even more sensitive to pain. On the other hand, the severely brain damaged humans barely survive in mental institutions and hospitals. Hence the experiments indicate a bias to give equal consideration to the interests of all beings, irrespective of species. The amount of experiments done on animals would hence reduce if prejudice was reduced.

There is also a claim by philosophers that there is a more profound difference between humans and nonhuman animals. They claim that animals cannot think or reason, and that consequently they neither have conception of themselves nor self-consciousness. They live from moment to moment, and do not see themselves as discrete elements with a history and expectations. They also do not have self-rule, the ability to decide how to survive one’s life. It has been observed that autonomous, self-conscious beings are more useful, more morally significant, than beings that live from instant to instant, without the ability to see themselves as discrete beings with a history and an expectation. Accordingly the interests of autonomous, self-conscious beings sought normally to take advantage over other beings interests. This assertion is even compatible with the principle of equal consideration of interests if it amounts to no more than the claim that something which happens to a self conscious being can cause it to suffer more than if the being were not self-conscious. This might be because the self conscious creature has greater awareness of what is happening, can fit the event into the overall framework of a longer time period, and so on (Guither 1998).

There is another possible reply to the claim that self-consciousness, or autonomy, or some similar characteristic, can serve to distinguish human from nonhuman animals: recall that there are mentally defective humans who have less claim to be self-conscious or autonomous than many nonhuman animals. If we use these characteristics to place a gulf between humans and other animals, we place these unfortunate humans on the other side of the gulf; and if the gulf is taken to mark a difference in moral status, then these humans would have the moral status of animals rather than humans.

CONCLUSION

Despite the objection of the case of equity principle for animals, many animals’ liberations or animal rights movements have sprung up. Tribute to these movements, some of the worst animals’ abuses, like the Draize and LD50 test are now less prevalent, however, they have not been alleviated. The fur trade for example, has come under attack in Britain, Australia and USA. In fact, come countries are also stating to legislate animal rights policies and incorporating them in their national laws. For instance, Switzerland has prohibited the cage system of keeping laying hens while Britain has outlawed raising of calves in individual stalls and is phasing out individual stall for pigs. All these are milestone achievements in the move towards equal consideration between humans and nonhumans.

ALL ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL

Like the human species, the animal species is diverse in specify of requirements, skills and needs, thus it becomes difficult to draw a line between those to be given privilege of protection from abuse and those to be mistreated. Some propositions however, suggest that animals rights should be accorded to a given group based on the level of cognition. Such that the greater an animal’s sense of awareness and the more advanced its cognition, the better its species is included as a recipient of a set of new privileges.

Based on Steven Wise’s mirror test, if an individual recognize the image it sees on the screen is itself and not another member of its species, then it can be said to be self-aware and thus can be awarded rights and even to its entire species. Intelligence test is also another unit that can be used to draw a line in the according of animal rights. General animals that are more like beings are regarded to be more intelligent and thus enjoy more rights than their counterparts.

Based on the evolutionary process it is suggested that Apes are closest relatives of humans. Chimpanzees and Gorillas are also said to have separated from humans in some years in the evolution process. In this regard, these animals are said to have similar genes to humans and are assumed to have similar functionality and thus treated specially than other animals (Regan 2004).

Another phenomenon that can be used to discriminate animals is the theory of the mind, which refers to one’s ability to know what another individual might be thinking of or believing in. This theory also includes observing the direction of another individual’s gaze. So far, all experiments show that apes have a better theory of the mind that is close to that of the humans. Further, experiment show that domestic dogs have the best social cues than all animals and this is just another reason why extension of rights to all animals is vital

The ability to plan for the future: intentionality is another component that could be used in rights discrimination against some animals. For instance, some animals have depicted tendencies to prepare for time to come such as storing food for future use or to build a nest for raising young ones. Also, the group hunting process illustrated in some animals like chimpanzees and also dogs not only show a level of intelligence but also cooperation and coordination at a notch higher. At the very least, a well coordinated group requires efficient communication which only a well-knit group can acquire (Singer 2008).

The ability to communicate with other animals is also another aspect that reflects a higher cognitive ability in animals. Apes, for example, are capable of using sign language and also pointing to objects. Not only verbal communication can be used to measure cognitively, but also body posture, odours and facial expressions are used to transmit information. The complexity of songs in birds, for instance is also taken to be a form of communication.

Apart from the above, the size of the brain and also ability to form images of unseen objects by some animals is used to indicate higher cognitive and thus more rights.

References

Bentham, J 1876, An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Guither, HD 1998, Animal rights : history and scope of a radical social movement, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

LESLEY J ROGERS, GK 2004, ALL ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUALThe interface between scientific knowledge and legislation of animal rigths.

O’Sullivan, S 2011, Animals, equality and democracy, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Regan, T 2004, The case for animal rights : updated with a new preface, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Singer, P 2008, Practical ethics, 2nd edn, Cambridge Univ. Press.