Abstract

In this paper, we have made an effort to explore the concept of Animals Rights and the Theories behind this concept. The moral of the research is concerning, whether or not animals have moral rights associated with themselves. This study initially argues the contractualist vision that animals have ethical position and then scrutinizes numerous methods to the standing of animals: utilitarian, virtue-based & rights-based. It is understood throughout that numerous animals are able of feeling satisfaction, ache and anguish. In accordance with certain moral presumptions, animals lack moral status. Animal pain or suffering, as such, does not matter morally unless it has some impact on creatures that do have moral status. A well-known and influential moral theory has the implication of contractualism. As per the utilitarianism, it is ethically correct to make the most of happiness and morally wrong to do otherwise. Utilitarianism implies that all creatures capable of happiness or suffering have moral status, in the sense that their happiness and suffering counts equally, whether they are human or animal

Table of Contents

Abstract1

Introduction3

Discussion & Analysis3

Argument in favor of Contractualism and the Claim That Animals Have No Moral Status3

Argument in favor of Utilitarianism7

Conclusion9

Works Cited10

The Moral Significance of Animals' Moral Claims

Introduction

Does it matter morally whether animals suffer or live long happy lives? Do animals have moral rights? The moral status of animals has become an increasingly significant topic with the morality of hunting, scientific experimentation on animals, and eating meat particularly widely discussed. This entry first discusses the contractualist view that animals have moral status and then examines several approaches to the status of animals: utilitarian, rights-based, and virtue-based. It is assumed throughout that many animals are capable of feeling pain, pleasure, and suffering (Francione, pp.16-23).

Discussion & Analysis

Argument in favor of Contractualism and the Claim That Animals Have No Moral Status

According to some ethical theories, animals lack moral status. Animal pain or suffering, as such, does not matter morally unless it has some impact on creatures that do have moral status. A well-known and influential moral theory has the implication of contractualism. According to contractualism, morality can be understood as a contract between rational creatures that can accept and abide by the terms of the contract. Because most (perhaps all) animals cannot make and choose to fulfill contracts, they neither possess moral responsibilities nor have moral status themselves. Eating animals, experimenting on them, even torturing them for fun is morally acceptable, considering the impact on the animals alone. Of course, many contractualists do not believe that torturing animals for fun is morally acceptable, and they can offer a number of explanations why it is wrong, namely, that it has implications for the treatment of people, who do have moral status. First, some animals (such as farm animals and pets) are owned by people, and it is wrong to damage their property. Second, torturing animals for fun may be bad for your character. By doing so, you will become callous and cruel and more likely in the future to torture people, which would ...