Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights
Nonhuman animals have been an issue being discussed in philosophical debates in recent years. The question that is often asked is " is it right to treat nonhuman animals as a means to our ends?" In other words, "is it morally justified to use these animals for food, entertainment, or tools in research? As Cavalieri points out, nonhuman animals deserve the same respect and equality as humans. He argues it is wrong to treat nonhuman animals simply as mere things in which one can do what he/she wants with these innocent creatures. After reading The Animal Question, I believe that the argument for Cavalieri's conclusion is strong.
The overall premises that Cavalieri uses to provide evidence for his conclusion can be summarized as follows:
1. The idea of equality needs to be based on the capacity to feel pain and pleasure, to pursue one's goals, and to enjoy one's life, rather than basing it on one's morals, values, and/or interests because if this change did occur, equality could not continue being effective for homo sapiens specifically. Nonhuman animals would have to be included.
2. Similar situations create different effects for animals than it does for human beings. An example Cavalieri uses is the idea of being captured. If a human is captured during a time of war, we can explain to them that their lives are not being threatened and there is no reason to worry. However, if we take a similar situation, capturing animals that have been free their whole lives, we cannot explain to them that they will not be harmed. Therefore the animals will have a greater feeling of fear than the humans. Nonhuman animals do not understand the difference, therefore making this type of action wrong and unfair.
3. Nonhuman animals should not be made to feel pain and suffer for the good of humans. They should not be thought of as machines in which humans can do with them as they wish.
4. Nonhuman animals are conscious and have desires. Their minds are similar to humans and should be treated in the same ways.
5. The removal of nonhumans from the category of things or items of property is essential to ending the inequality of nonhuman animals.
Cavalieri's argument is an inductively strong one. Because the argument has all true premises, it is also an inductively cogent argument. The argument is complete due to the fact that all relevant evidence is taken into account. Throughout the book, Cavalieri uses others different as well as similar opinions, such as Peter Singers, Harlan B. Miller, and Will Kymlicka, to support good and convincing reasons to support his own premises and conclusion. With all these qualities, it is obvious that he has given a strong, convincing argument.
In conclusion, Cavalieri offers a strong argument for his conclusion. The other people he used throughout the book who often presented different ideas than his own failed to convince me as well as Cavalieri that animals are only here for human conception. Although Cavalieri was difficult to follow in a sense, his basic idea that animals have rights too, was conveyed. Perhaps in our society, animal rights is an issue similar to that of abortion, religion, etc. in that people think that their way of thinking on a certain issue is the only way, and it is often difficult to convince others to adopt a different belief system. Although this causes some distress, I've come to realize that there will probably not be an end to using animals for food, clothing, and entertainment. We (including Cavalieri) that one day we will find out from God if animals were put on earth for that reason. It is wrong to use nonhuman animals as a means to our ends.
