{"id":761376,"date":"2020-09-09T07:46:06","date_gmt":"2020-09-09T11:46:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=761376"},"modified":"2020-09-09T07:50:21","modified_gmt":"2020-09-09T11:50:21","slug":"people-hate-cruelty-to-animals-so-why-do-we-do-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=761376","title":{"rendered":"People hate cruelty to animals, so why do we do it?"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

As a society we must confront deep and difficult questions about whether animals have moral rights and, if so, what they might be, and how (if at all) their rights differ from humans.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

DAVID KILLOREN:<\/strong> When we hear about animals being neglected, we\u2019re often outraged… But harm to animals is common in our society. Tens of billions of animals are killed in farms and slaughterhouses every year. Their deaths are sometimes truly horrific. Humanity\u2019s relationship with animals is dysfunctional: humans love animals yet simultaneously perpetrate extreme violence against them. This is not only bad for animals. It\u2019s bad for us too…<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s an ethics thought experiment. Five humans are dying of organ failure. The only way to save their lives is to kill one healthy person, harvest their organs, and transplant these into the five dying people. Is it morally acceptable to kill the one to save the many? If you\u2019re like most people, your answer is a firm \u201cno\u201d. Humans have a right to life and can\u2019t be killed in service of the greater good.<\/p>\n

This is an example of what\u2019s known as a deontological judgment. But now let\u2019s change the scenario. Suppose you are the manager of a sanctuary for chickens. An infectious virus is spreading through the sanctuary and you have to decide whether to kill one infected chicken or allow the virus to spread throughout the sanctuary, killing a larger number. Now what?<\/p>\n

When confronted with the chicken scenario, many will say it\u2019s acceptable to kill the one to save the many. Your responsibility as manager of the sanctuary is to promote the aggregate health and well-being of all the chickens in your care. If this means you have to kill one chicken to save many more, so be it. This is an example of what\u2019s known as a utilitarian judgment. When we think about cases where animal lives are at stake, we often tend to think in utilitarian terms. When we think about cases where human lives are at stake, we often tend to think in deontological terms…<\/p>\n

Currently, many of us see most animals as mere things, the way fishermen typically see bycatch. And this might continue into the future. But that\u2019d be a tragedy. Despite their differences from humans, animals are conscious individuals with their own welfare, and so do matter in themselves…<\/p>\n

Famous philosophers such as Tom Regan have argued a vast range of animals ought to be seen as… beings who not only matter in themselves, but who also have rights, such as the right to life, or the right to bodily integrity, or even the right to liberty…<\/p>\n

Recognising this will be an essential step in reducing the tremendous amount of unnecessary suffering and death that humans inflict on animals. The simple recognition that animals are not mere things is in itself of massive importance, but it\u2019s also only the beginning of the work we have ahead of us.<\/p>\n

As a society we must confront deep and difficult questions about whether animals have moral rights and, if so, what those rights might be, and how (if at all) their rights differ from those of human beings. Philosophers have been debating such questions for decades but haven\u2019t reached consensus (yet). Such questions must be addressed before we can we hope to find a new relationship with animals that fully recognises and respects our obligations to them. SOURCE…<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEO:<\/strong><\/p>\n