Frey declares that humans have the freedom to decide what they would like to do with their life and this is a human only capability. They can decide whether they would like to work as a teacher, contractor, lawyer ect. There are varieties of ways to enrich the human life, such as through religion, education, recreation and others. For this reason an animal could never have the quality of life as human. A frog doesn't have the ability to change its mind and live its life as fox; nor can it change its job of catching flies to a new career of catching fish.
Animals and humans are classified into separate categories. A mentally handicapped person in our society has less "value" than a person in the normal state; just as a mouse has less value than a tiger. Everything has an unequal stance in life regardless of whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not. Therefore humans are ranked above animals since they are better agents.
Most would say that human life has more worth than the life of an animal. Frey even asks do people have the right to even assume that their lives are better or worse than animals, since we are different creatures? Humans understand human life not animal life. How can animals have equivalent rights to life as humans when they both do not understand the other? Frey's case holds that the quality of human life is more significant than an animal's life.
Frey, R.G. "Moral Standing, the Value of Lives and Speciesism." Ethics in Practice. Ed. Hugh Lafollette. Blackwell Publishers:1997
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Animals deserve rights because just like humans, they feel excruciating pain, suffer and have feelings. One would argue that animals don’t experience emotions? But the answer is of course they do. It is emotions that allow animals to display various behavior patterns. According to the theory of utilitarianism, all sentient beings should be given consideration in the society and this includes both animals and humans. Also, animals cannot speak for themselves and for this reason they should be treated equally, protected and given the same respect as human beings. Peter singer’s approach also supports the argument on equal consideration in that animals deserve the same respect as human beings but just in a different view. In today’s society humans exploit animals for milk, meat, fur, scientific experimentation etc. and animals are constantly injured or killed. Their pain and sufferings should be taken into consideration, as this unjust treatment is morally unacceptable. Similarly speciesism is an…
- 476 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In the essay titled “Religion and Animal Rights” by American Philosopher Tom Regan, Mr. Regan maintains the position that animals are the “subjects-of-a-life”, just as humans are. If we want to ascribe value to all human beings regardless of the degree of rationality they are capable of, then in order to be consistent we must similarly ascribe it to non-human animals as well. He effectively uses a pathos and logos approach when he argues to his audience that that all practices involving the mistreatment of animals should be abolished rather than reformed, animals have an inherent value just as humans do, and emphasizes that unbridled Christian theology has brought the earth to the brink of ecological disaster.…
- 1452 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Determining the rights of non-human animals and deciding how to treat them may not be a choice available to our human society. As an advocate for the rights of animals, Tom Reganʻs three main goals are to abandon the use of animals in any scientific research, discontinue all commercial animal agriculture, and to completely terminate both commercial and sport animal hunting. To support these intentions, Regan argues that every human and non-human animal possesses inherent value, which makes them all more than a physical object or vessel. He then states that possessing inherent value allows every human and non-human to have rights of their own. To further his argument, Regan claims that the any human and non-human retaining rights requires equal treatment and respect from others. To conclude his argument, Regan states that due to these reasons, non-human animals cannot be treated as resources and must be treated by humans as equals. In this paper, I object to Reganʻs third premise, which states that non-human and human animals must be treated as equals and with respect, because our communication barrier with non-human animals restricts us from determining their notion of equal treatment or respect, and that attempting to do so could…
- 990 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Humans and animals are two different things; however, they can be the same. We consider ourselves different from animals because we don’t walk on all fours, don’t eat off the ground, we have manners, we know the difference between right and wrong, and we have free will. Although, animals have the ability to do what they want when they want,…
- 353 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
2. In “Animal Liberation”, Peter Singer argues that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He believes that a lot of our modern practices are speciesist, and that they hold our best interest above all else. The only animals that we give equal consideration are humans. He questions our reasonings for giving equal consideration to all members to our species, because, some people are more superior than others, in terms of intelligence or physical strength. Humans value themselves over…
- 1055 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Perhaps the most important rhetorical aspect of each paper is the overall structure and order of the author’s ideas as they present their opinions and their purpose to the audience. Throughout Speciesism and Moral Status, Singer presents his information in a very specific way, beginning with the controversial statement that not all humans are above animals, and that there should be a…
- 1472 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
i. Singer stresses the fact that the principle of utility gives animals moral standing, and gives their interests equal weight with the like interest of humans, but denies animals this equal moral standing.…
- 779 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
First of all, one of the reasons that humans should be in a separate category from non-human animals is that human beings are conscious and can choose courses of action (Alger and Alger). Human beings are capable of taking wise decisions by using their judgement. On the other hand, the other animals are not conscious and operate only on instinct (Alger and Alger).…
- 734 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Peter Singer and his philosophy have received a range of praise and criticism for his progressive views. Some have called him the most dangerous man in the world, while others consider him a hero in the teachings of morality and ethics. His detractors make mention of his views on Animal Equality, blasting his comparisons of modern man’s treatment of animals to that of; slavery the Holocaust, human suffering and infanticide. Singer’s essay, All Animals Are Equal, poses the argument that all sentiment beings are entitled to the most basic of dignities and consideration, no different than those considerations reserved for humans. Singer draws no line of distinction between our species and other species who we, as humans…
- 1249 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
The author argues inherent value. Regan points out animals should be able to experience life with inherent value of their own. Addressing commercial animal agriculture, the author declares "The fundamental moral wrong here is not that animals are kept in stressful close confinement or in isolation, or that their pain and suffering, their needs and preferences are ignored or discounted." Regan continues the only way to right the wrong would be to stop…
- 684 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Jeremy Rifkin argues how the human and animal have differences and we should care more about the animal in the editorial “A Change of Heart About Animals”. I strongly agree because animals like humans, have feeling like we do. Some animals kill each other mainly because there trying to survive for their own good. Humans care for their animals because animals can’t always be on their own. Therefore, we should give animals more empathy because they should be equally treated like we are treated.…
- 347 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
In Peter Singers All Animals Are Equal, he claims we should give the same respect the lives of non human animals as we give the lives of humans and that all animals human and non-human are in fact equal. I agree with him because there is no reason as to why animals should not get the same rights and respect as us. Animals have interest, when these are similar to ours, or their pain is on a similar level why give them less consideration. All human and animals have similar feelings such as loving something or feeling pain when they get hurt. I agree with Singer in what he says when animals should be given the same respect and treated equally.…
- 759 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The difference between “right” and “wrong” is rarely plainly clear. Dozens of wars have been fought over the centuries that have been driven by differing moral beliefs. These rights, and actions motivated by them, are justified by a society’s collective morals, which begs the question- who decides what the collective belief of an entire society is? Some seem relatively clear—the right to life, the right to work—while others are significantly cloudier— how does my right to own property and freely express myself affect my neighbor’s right to have a safe, peaceful place to live? As the layers of these moral problems are uncovered we delve deeper into what rights are, and just as importantly, who has them and why? Philosopher Immanuel Kant’s believes that all persons have inherent value and he bases his view of human rights off of whether or not the person is capable of making moral judgments and having free will and reason. Just as it has been argued over time what exactly a right is, not all have agreed on who has a right and why they deserve it. Though Tom Regan gives much credit to the Kantian argument of value, he believes the ownership of rights goes slightly further- that it is not rationality that defines the ownership of rights, but rather being the “subject of a life”. Regan uses egalitarianism to argue that in order to believe that people have more inherent rights than animals would contradict the argument altogether because it would favor humans or Homo sapiens over other animals simply because of our species. This “speciesist” belief cannot be justified, Regan says, because it ignores the worth and inherent value of millions of subjects of lives.…
- 2005 Words
- 9 Pages
Better Essays -
Although humans and animals have similar anatomies the two are completely different. Animals are not capable to think like humans and do the same things as humans like talking for example. Animals can’t communicate how would they be able to know what they can and can’t do in the society? Humans are given rights because they are somewhat responsible, but animals have no sense of responsibility because they have no duties in their…
- 996 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Although Rifkin successfully points out that animals have similar feelings, intelligence and behaviors, in my opinion that doesn’t warrant giving animals all the same rights as human beings possess. While I am for simple laws to protect animal cruelty I don't believe that taking the animal rights to extremes is necessary. The fact is that we still need profitable meat farming and laboratory testing in order to keep our society functionable. So ask yourself this; do you want to never eat meat again? Do you want animals to have the same equal rights as humans? Or even worse, would you want our society to perform the same animal product testing that is currently done on animals done to…
- 973 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays