To argue that only those capable of recognising moral claims have moral status implies that there are even some people who do not have a moral status. The definition of moral status as it stands excludes infants, Alzheimer sufferers and in fact anyone suffering from severe brain damage, yet this group of people is some of the most cared about beings in society. It is unlikely that the same people would argue that it is morally acceptable for cosmetic products to be tested upon infants so it shouldn’t be acceptable to do it to animals.
I feel that any being that has the potential for suffering and pain is entitled to a moral status. Animals as stated previously are incapable of recognising moral claims and therefore do not have a duty to humans, however the same cannot be said for the majority of humans and therefore they have a duty towards animals. It may be argued that there is plenty examples of good treatment of animals already and cite examples of pet ownership etc. However any duty paid to animals is only because of the utility the human gains from the animal’s existence, for example a dog owner only feeds and shelters the dog because it gives them companionship. Examples like this are entirely self interested in their nature and the duty only exists so long as there is a utility to be obtained from the animal. If an animal bears no utility to the human alive, it is most likely the animal will be used for food. It is fairly common to find this hypocrisy amongst most pet owners.
I would therefore argue that it is necessary to have a duty to all animals regardless of any self interested utility that can be gained from an animal. There must be a principal of equality with regards to the duty of animals to ensure that all animals receive the same basic rights. However Peter Singler argues that ‘the extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups. Whether we should do so will depend on the nature of the members of the two groups. The basic principle of equality, I shall argue, is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights.’ (4)
It is therefore not undutiful for a person to own a dog or any sort of pet so long as he extends the basic principles of rights to all other animals.
When considering environmental ethics we have to take a departure from moral law and the categorical imperative. It is not possible for a geological product such as a tree or a rock to suffer or to feel pain. It is consequentially fair to argue that humanity has not duty to protect the environment on the basis of a moral claim. If there is no duty to protect the environment then the categorical imperative not to be self-interested also doesn’t apply. It is therefore ok to use the environment from a self interested point of view providing it does not clash with any other duties humanity holds. The environment undoubtedly holds an intrinsic value to humanity and therefore it is in the best interest of human race to prolong its viable existence (5).
Even though we do not have a duty to the environment by a moral claim, we do however have a duty to animals. The treatment of the environment by the human race has unfortunately caused a great deal of distress to animals, for example the destruction of the rainforest has destroyed the natural habitats of hundreds of animals. If we now hold a duty to animals then we must ensure that we do not cause them suffering. If we were to chop down the rainforest now, not only would we be destroying their habitat but we would be also harming the environment, however because we have a duty to animals by proxy we also have duty to the environment.
There is another debate that exists when it comes to the duty humans hold to the environment. The debate is whether humanity owes a duty to future generations of the human race. I don’t believe that there is duty to future generations, purely because something which is not currently in existence does not have any rights or a moral claim. Having said this, the environmental challenges currently being faced are having just as much effect on the current generation as they will on future generations. The duty that the current generation has to themselves to prevent further damage to the earth will be of benefit to future generations.
In conclusion I believe that we do hold a duty both to animals and to the environment. It is not the reasoning capabilities or an ability that entitles a being to equality; instead it is the life and potential suffering that dictates the duty humans have to animals. The suffering of animals is still vastly overlooked and on the most part accepted in society, however they have a moral claim despite their lack of moral reasoning and have just as much a moral claim as infants or children. So far the only duty shown to animals is only on self-interested occasions when an animal can provide some utility to the human. For humans to have a duty to animals they must now provide the same basic principles of rights to all animals. As for the environment, the repercussions of over a hundred years of mistreatment to the environment are starting to become apparent. Global warming has started to melt the polar ice caps and heat waves are causing more and more deaths. It is the moral duty of everyone to prevent habitats from being destroyed, animals killed and for the prolonged existence of humanity. Equality of humans has gradually gotten better and better with instances like the civil rights movement yet despite a much more enlightened society, animal suffering has arguably gotten worse, it is the duty of humanity towards animals to help stop this suffering.
Endnotes
(1) Immanuel Kant, (2004) “The groundwork of the Meta physics of Morals”
(Cambridge University Press, 1998)
(2) Immanuel Kant, (2004) “The groundwork of the Meta physics of Morals”
(Cambridge University Press, 1998)
(3) Regan and Singer (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, (New Jersey, 1989), p.4
(4) Regan and Singer (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, (New Jersey, 1989), p.5
(5) ‘Environmental Ethics’ Introduction in Stanford Encyclopedia of
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/)
Bibliography
Wolff, J. (2006) An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Revised Edition) Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kant, Immanuel, 1785, The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Mary J. Gregor (trans.), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
‘The Moral Status of Animals’ in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/)
‘Environmental Ethics’ Introduction in Stanford Encyclopedia of
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/)
Regan, Tom and Peter Singer (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations,
(New Jersey, 1989, pp. 148-162)
Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation, (London: Cape. 1974)
Baylis, John and Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds), The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relation, 4th edition, (Oxford University Press, 2008).
