At the turn of the 21st century, the subject of animal rights has become one of the controversial and frequently discussed topics in the news. Year after year, society has made giant strides in trying to better understand nature and the impact humanity has on the lives of these creatures with whom we share the world. But as humanity began to try to act on behalf of the animal, the question arose: what ethical rights can be assigned to the animal? Evidence of acts of cruelty towards animals spread across the world and humanity went to defend the rights of the voiceless animal. With this, the ethical problem grew – in the words of philosopher Jeremy Bentham: “The question is not whether they [animals] can reason?, nor whether they can speak? But can they suffer? (Bentham quoted in Wise) If an animal cannot rationalize, is it unfit to receive ethical rights? Or, following Jeremy Bentham, does the question really arise: can the animal still feel pain, whatever its mental capacities? Although the philosophical question of animal rights may never be answered, this essay will attempt to clarify some of the main arguments for and against the current debate. To achieve this, different opinions are organized through the positions of virtue ethics, deontology and utilitarianism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original EssayIn examining what virtue ethics or virtue theory is, it is important to understand the principle underlying main underlying: each action taken must aim at a certain objective. pretty good. Ultimately, virtue ethics holds that any action taken should aim to promote a person's happiness or flourishing. But when it comes to the animal kingdom, virtue ethics asserts that this happiness is felt only in the mind of man, and not in that of a beast, according to one of the most vocal voices. strong in the theory of virtue, Aristotle. Aristotle stated that animals are incapable of rational thought and because of their instinctive ways they do not warrant moral thought in the same way as humanity. He believed that animals were only a means of serving the happiness and needs of man on Earth. Similarly, the philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas believed that because animals were incapable of making coherent decisions, humans were responsible for making choices for them. Furthermore, Thomas Aquinas stated that animals were only tools in the world that humanity could use at its disposal. As a Christian theologian, he found his rationalization valid because, in the natural order, Thomas Aquinas believed that man must end up on top as his God intended, using beings of lesser power and lesser rank, animals, as a means to achieve the goal. the existence that man has divinely and naturally deserved. However, in studying virtue-theoretical ethics, one might argue in contradiction to the assertions of Aristotle and Aquinas. Perhaps a traditional virtue theorist would argue for the need to secure animal rights because that is the justified position to take, based on the fact that it is a virtuous position to occupy. For example, if one sees an animal being tortured and it needs help, virtue ethics would require human intervention on the grounds that a morally good person would not watch an innocent creature suffer while has the opportunity to intervene and offer assistance. A virtue theorist would wantapprove the possibility of maintaining or creating an action of righteousness by saving an innocent being, of kindness by helping a creature in distress, of dignity by showing humility towards the creature in need, etc. The stance on animal rights, given the speed with which the animal rights movement has taken off, has become more widely accepted to the extent that the way society now views the treatment of animals has changed radically since the days of Aristotle and Saint Aquinas. Similar to virtue theory, deontology focuses on obtaining a morally justified response to the ethical problem at hand. Also called the ethics of duty, deontology is the emphasis placed on the duty of each person towards others, called “perfect duty”. In doing so, one must realize the “categorical imperative,” which is a morally just and sound universal law or principle. The leading spokesperson for this belief, Immanuel Kant, wrote “act as if the maxim of your action were to become, by your will, a universal law of nature” (Kant 89). Deontology firmly believes that humanity should always be treated as an end, never as a means - specifically that every person one encounters, regardless of their importance or social position in the world, should be treated with the same respect, because it helps to achieve an end. . Continuing this line of thought, Kant writes that animals are only a means to an end. Like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas before him, he viewed animals as irrational beings, incapable of logical and coherent thought, which placed them physically and ethically in a different position from humanity. Dr. Nelson T. Potter of the University of Nebraska has written at length about Kant's views on animal rights: According to Kant, we human beings are finite rational beings… Given this fact, all our duties are duties towards a possible experience. There are no human beings who have only duties and no rights – they would be slaves or serfs. And it turns out that the apparent duties to which we must refrain from cruel treatment towards (non-human) animals are not direct duties towards these animals, but duties towards ourselves and simply indirect duties to the respect for animals. (Potter 299) Simply put, duty requires one to promote one's personal goodness and intervene on behalf of the animal in need in the eyes of ethics. Kant also believes that wanting to stop harming animals is also an acceptable categorical imperative, because negative actions like animal cruelty would cause damage to a person's inner character. It would follow that in the eyes of an ethicist, the duty to one's community and to oneself would be not to be an animal abuser in any situation. Nelson T. Potter also thought that Kant should reconsider his view that animals do not deserve the same ethical consideration given to humans, following the division of all creatures on Earth in Kant's writings, Metaphysics of Nature. moral. Potter cites Kant's words to defend his view that animals, due to their inability to produce rational thought, should be afforded the same moral rights as a non-functioning human, due to the fact that lack of function brain and thought production is physically the same. Dr. Potter wrote in his article “Kant on Duties Toward Animals”: ​​“Kant tells us that first, the relation of the rights of human beings toward those who have neither rights nor duties has no members because “they are beings devoid of reason, who cannotneither bind us nor by which we can be bound. It is in this empty classification that Kant would place the moral relationship between humans and animals. (Potter 305) Later in his article, Potter introduces another category of beings that Kant never addresses specifically in the Metaphysics of Morals, those who are seriously ill and incapable of performing basic life functions. Dr. Potter writes that those who are so physically ill that they are not capable of rational thought or essential brain processes should be considered to have the same ethical consideration as animals: The conclusion regarding both groups is that the paradigmatic classes non-human animals and humans permanently incapable of functioning rationally should be treated ethically in the same way. For people, Kantians or otherwise, with what I have called moderate views on animal rights, this forces them to make an unfortunate choice: either dramatically raise the appropriate level of moral rights for paradigmatic nonhuman animals, or considerably lower the level of these rights granted to humans permanently. and seriously lacks rational function. (Potter 305) Following Dr. Potter's line of thinking, if Kantians were to follow the metaphysics of morality and apply Potter's deductions. It would follow that Kant could have considered these two types of non-rational creatures as equal, granting animals the same ethical rights as humans. While today society has adopted a general stance in favor of basic animal rights, this might have been considered dangerous thinking in Immanuel Kant's time. Utilitarianism is the ethical view that a person's actions are justified if they are done with the goal of achieving the greatest good, without pain. “The Greatest Principle of Good” states that the goal of utilitarianism is to try to achieve whatever promotes happiness without harm. Furthermore, one achieves one's objective if the happiness created is greater than the consequences of one's actions. John Stuart Mill, one of the most influential thinkers in utilitarianism, classified the levels of happiness one can obtain: higher pleasures, consisting of intellectual stimuli, and lower pleasures, consisting of physical incentives. Higher pleasures, such as pride, freedom, and dignity, were of higher priority according to Mill. He writes in Utilitarianism about the importance of these higher pleasures, such as dignity: “It is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig; Better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool. And if the fool or the pig is of a different opinion, it is only because they know only their own side of the matter” (Mill 10). Man often gives in to lower pleasures, he concludes, because of weakness, bad choices, and incorrect behavior. Instead, one should try to sacrifice happiness in order to obtain these higher pleasures, not to reduce happiness, according to JS Mill. In this line of thinking, the deprivation of the life and liberty of animals for a utilitarian would constitute a great injustice, regardless of the mental capacities of the creature. In fact, utilitarianism's position was that the categorical imperative was to help those who did not have rights, such as the poor and slaves, because it was a moral responsibility. Utilitarianism believes that every person should make voluntary sacrifices like this and actively try to have a conscience, because the goal of utilitarianism is ultimate happiness without pain. JS Mill further explored his utilitarian beliefs and developed these principles in his 1874 writings, “On Nature.” In these works, Mill