The existence of differences among humans bars actual existence of equality. This is because the differences cannot be overcome by any means. The white for long have claimed to be superior to the blacks. This is only by considering the race factor. However there exist no differences between the white and the black in terms of intellectual ability, moral capacities and ability to communicate and hence another set of inequalities sets in. Such considerations may not be taken to explain the existence of inequality entirely. Basically, equality should be taken largely as a moral ideal but not a simple assertion of a fact, and this means that equality doesn’t depend on intelligence, physical strength or any other similar fact. Based on this, the mere existence of differences between two groups of people does not justify any difference in the consideration we ought to give to the satisfaction of their needs. Thus the principle of equality of humans should not be taken to be actual equality but it is a prescription of how each human being should to be treated. This equal consideration should not be limited to humans only but should be extended to include all other nonhuman animals. Capacity for suffering is a critical characteristic that gives human beings the right of equal consideration. If one is suffering there is no moral justification of not taking the suffering into consideration.
Most human beings meet the other species; nonhuman when it is meal time; by eating them. Killing the animals for meat is discrimination. In such a case, humans treat them as pure means to their end. Eating flesh cannot be justifiable since there are other means of meeting the nutritional needs like the use of soy beans and other high protein vegetables. Killing of animals is not the only discrimination the humans’ accord to the animals but other discrimination exists in the way the humans handle the animals while alive. For example, confining animals in cramped and unsuitable conditions all their lives and ending up killing them for meat is discriminative. The use of animals for the experiments is yet another way of mistreating animals. Subjecting animals to extreme and vigorous punishment to test psychological theory or the reactions of completely new compounds is completely immoral and such discrimination is uncalled for. Performing such experiments using adult animals which are aware of what is happening and experience pain just like any other species is discriminative.
If humans are to be considered equal to one another, then some basic characteristics ought to be considered, these characteristics should be so low that no one human being lacks them. The characteristics that are shared by all the humans will also be shared by the animals. Therefore saying that all humans are equal, at least the other species are also equal to each other and to the humans, and as such all animals are equal.
Singer’s argument is true on the basis that equality cannot be based on individual factual characteristics like physical strength, intelligence, sex etc. Equality is a moral issue of which even nonhuman animals ought to be considered.
James Rachel’s where we should "draw the line" with regard to animal welfare
Rachel says that there exists no one line to be drawn on whether to kill animals or not, unless it is an arbitrary one. He argues this from quite a subtle point of view that animal should have standing morals. Animal committees should be established to give animal requirements of research and as such ensure that all the animals used in the laboratory are treated as decently as possible. To this the animal use in the laboratories will reduce.
For animals to have moral standing as it applies in the law they should have the right to be recognized and have their claims taken into consideration. Taking for example trees should have moral standing and hence should be considered while making policies and conserved for their own sake. To say that then animal have moral standing is to call for their interest be considered from a moral point of view and their count on the morals should be for their own sake but not because failure to do so there will be a negative effect on humans.
How do we then know that animals have moral standing? To answer this question, Rachel used several approaches. The first being the personhood approach. This begins with assumptions that persons have moral standing. Normal human beings are persons; other beings may or may not be persons. It is under these assumption that we ask what it takes to be a person. The answer to this is the self-consciousness. This creates a difference among the humans and the other being. Using this basis then the other beings are not persons but this does not guarantee the humans’ full moral right and the rest of the beings a lesser moral right. The definition of self-conscious becomes important at this point. Self conscious is defined as the ‘capacity to be aware of one’s distinctive self as a relatively autonomous being among other such selves’. Such a capacity is both necessary and sufficient for personhood and for maximal moral standing. This characteristic is also shared by nonhumans.
The criteria for moral standing are not thorough on the case of animals. Any rational autonomous agents have moral standing. In such a case then animals will not have full moral standing but have some lesser moral standing. However any sentient beings have moral standing hence all animal should have full moral status since they are sentient. These two points of view may seem to contradict but generally there exist no one such characteristic like rationality, sentient or any other that is completely relevant to the whole range of ways in which animals should be treated.
Rationality may at times not be applicable. Take for example a small child who has to be paternalised since it is not completely rational. A rational being may make decisions which are self destructive. Such a situation may not be justified to forcibly prevent the autonomous being from such decisions. One can be denied university admission if he or she can’t read. This has nothing to do with autonomy but the inability to read. What this means is that an animal can be coerced for its own good since it is not an autonomous being, an animal may be bared from a class since it cant read and appropriate veterinary practices may be administered to animals since they are vulnerable to disease thought they not autonomous, can’t read and all this has nothing to do with autonomy.
Animals are not autonomous but feel pain, though not clear of all animals. Mammals feel pain and many other animals. Should we then not kill small nuisance animals like the cockroaches and mosquitoes? There exist no any specific rules on how to treat animals and nonhumans. Rachel concluded that ‘there is no any specific boundary where one can draw a line’ on the treatment of animals and humans.
Generally animals can not be treated equally as humans, hence can be used for research. Animals have a moral standing but this is objectionable in certain ways and this has to do with their welfare. Rachel is right on the unequal treatment of animals in fact she points out that even humans cannot be treated equally. This is because the situations of autonomy and rationality may not always hold.
Works cited
Sunstein, Cass and Nussbaum, Martha C. Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2005. Print.
