I strongly think that if a living being can suffer it should be given moral rights. But some argue that it is not whether they can suffer but the status of their mental abilities that gives them the right to have rights.
Peter Singer discusses an argument to his theory that pain felt by an animal is not as bad as pain felt by a human because humans have a greater awareness of what is happening to them and as a result their suffering is greater. He responds to this criticism by asking if it would be reasonable then to say that it would be ok to use an infant or a severely mentally disabled person for experiments because they likewise would not understand what was happening. I think it would be reasonable to compare the two because they are parallel. We would never consider using a human for such experiments so why is using animals ok? Just because an animal is not mentally aware of exactly what is being done to them it does not in any way lessen the amount of pain they feel. They still know they are being hurt. As a living thing they feel, think, want, and need certain things, just like a full functioning human being does.
Do you agree that if we would not use an infant or mentally disabled person for experiments that we should likewise not use animals because even though their mental ability is lacking they still suffer and feel the pain that is being afflicted upon them? Do you think moral rights should be based on the ability to suffer, mental ability, or both?
No comments:
Post a Comment