APPLIED ETHICS
Animals exist in the borderline of the moral concept. As a result, we sometimes find that accord animal a strong moral status. However, at some other points, we may deny them any form of moral status. For instance, usually, public crime is strong if the “puppy mills” knowledge is available. Individuals believe that dogs deserve more consideration than the operators provide. But, when the condition is pointed out in the factory farm, it is usually as bad (Waddington, 2017). The situation of puppy mills is much worse. The reason behind it is that dogs are just animals, and they do not have merit the concern. Different philosophers have diverse meanings concerning whether we have a moral obligation towards the animals. The theories are moral equality, indirect theories, as well as direct but unequal theories.
According to the indirect theories, animals o not have moral status. Therefore we do not have a moral obligation to them. The theory posits that animals lack autonomy, reason, and consciousness. As a result, they suggest we do not have moral obligation over them. However, the theory does not support harming the animals. The reason behind not harming the animals is that by so doing, it hurts the morality of human beings.
Moreover, the direct but unequal theories suggest that we have some moral consideration to the animals. However, they deny them full ethical consideration. It as a result of the animal not having the ability to respect the other animals’ rights (Attfield & Humphreys, 2017). The theory argues that animals’ sentience has enough reason not to harm the animals directly.
Morality equality approaches extend equal consideration to animals. Therefore, it suggests that individuals have a moral obligation over the animals (Jamieson, 2017). According to the approach, the animals are entitled to rights since they have the same physiological, as well as mental capacities to those of the infants or disabled human beings.
Therefore, individuals have a moral obligation to the animals. I agree with the moral equality theory that suggests that human beings have a moral obligation to the animal. Human beings are living things. According to Aristotle, living things have a natural hierarchy. Therefore, living things belong to different level of the hierarchy. The nature of the beings influence the different levels in which they belong. Human beings, plants, and animals are capable of taking care of the growing, and nutrition. Only human beings and animals have conscious experience. As a result, plants are inferior in the social living hierarchy compared to the animal and human beings.
Similarly, human beings are superiors as we compare to the animals. Therefore, human beings are different from animals. They have a high intelligence that makes them to be ranked highly in the living things hierarchy. Human beings use reason which guide their conduct. Animals cannot reason; therefore, they depend on their instinct. As a result, the role of the animal is to serve the human beings’ needs. It is under the Aristotle natural and expedient. Therefore, the human beings, and animals depend on each other.
Aristotle argues that it is only human beings who are rational. Thus they could determine their action. As a result, they are only human being that could extend their concern for others. Aquinas, a philosopher, believes if a living being could not direct their action, others may do so for them. The being that could direct their actions are instruments. Usually, instruments exist for the sake of the individuals to use them, but not for their purpose. Therefore, because animals could not direct their action, they exist for the sake of human beings who direct their actions.
According to Aquinas, God is the creator of livings things. Also, it is only through the use of human intelligence that one could gain knowledge and understand God. Therefore, human beings are only beings that could understand God. Thus all other people exist for the sake of human beings. Human beings should take care of them.
Moreover, according to the food chain, animals are capable of eating one another. The animal that eats other it is considered to be superior (Monamy, 2017). Therefore, some exist for the sake of others. Human beings in the food chain are superior. They eat other animals. They also control their actions. Therefore, the animals exist for the sake of human beings. As a result, the human being a moral obligation of the animals.
Moral obligation over animals
Moral obligation illustrates responsibility as a result of considering what is right and wrong. The requirements arise from the ethical perspective, or a mere careful duty, not related to any legal obligation, perfect or else imperfect, or with the receipt of advantage by the promisor of a factual or economic nature (Johannsen, 2017). Moreover, the springs from a sense of justice and equity that a noble individual could have. Usually, it is not from a mere act of doing benevolence or donations.
Rights are perceptions that human beings create to maintain social order with other humans. The animal have rights. The rights of the animals are derived from the human rights. This is because there are no morally relevant differences between human beings and other animals. Both human beings and animals are subjects of life (Curtin, 2016). Therefore, they both have rights. Animals have the same biological complexity.
Moreover, they are conscious and understand that they exist. They make choices through the use of the instincts, and also they like, and dislike others. For example, dogs may hate a particular dogs or even a human being. If they do dislike human beings, it will be impossible to pass over them. That’s why individuals keep them since they do not like strangers. As a result, human beings have an obligation over the animals. Animals have the right to treated with respect since they are sentient creatures.
Moreover, animals have the right to be treated with care and humanly. Therefore, individuals have the obligation of taking care of the animals. They need to make sure that the animals have good health and are not subject to the diseases. Therefore, they need to be adequately fed, and their environment could be essential for them to survive (Korsgaard, 2018). The animal should not be exposed to dangers since it could kill them, therefore, leading to their extinction. Animals are essential to human beings since they depend on them for survival. Animals such as domestic animals depend on the human nature to take care of them. Therefore, human beings need to treat them with respect, provide them with medical care, and ensure that their surroundings are conducive to survival. That’s why there are animal rights that suggest that one should not kill the animal. Animals are sentient, and therefore have direct moral status.
Pain and pleasure are directly morally essential; therefore, human beings should not harm the animal since this could harm their morality (Just, 2018). Therefore, individuals have moral obligation over the animals. They provide for them, for instance, the domestic animals. For wild animals, individuals should not kill them. Therefore, ensuring that they survive and are protected from the harm. Therefore, human beings need to love and be treated with care.
Individuals currently treat animals with a lot of care. They love them, and therefore ensure that they are free from any danger. They provide medical attention to them. Thus, they ensure that they are in a conducive environment. As a result, the animals are protected. They free from harm, and therefore they continue to exist. They do so because they understand that they have an obligation to the animals. There the current treatment of animals is following the human responsibility to them.
Question 5
Some ethicists suggest that rich countries have no obligation to the developing nation. They state that the moral duty of the rich country is to act in a manner that maximizes human happiness and reduces human suffering. They think that in the long run helping the poor will result in more suffering. This is because high birth rates characterize developing countries. So, helping them will make them depend on the rich countries. Therefore they will keep on reproducing and rely on the wealthy nation. Thus, the states will have many populations. As a result, high levels of poverty. However, the wealthy have the moral obligation of helping the developing countries.
First, all individuals have the moral obligation of preventing harm. By the rich country, aiding the poor prevent themselves from the harm. The death, and suffering from the starvation is considered as a harm. Therefore, by the act of the wealthy countries assisting the poor, it means that they are preventing the harm. Helping the poor nation could be in the form of many types. It could be financial or even resources. Resources could include food, and also the information. Rich countries could help the poor ones with information on how to alleviate the poverty level in their countries. Through providing knowledge, it could be essential to the states. Therefore, the help the countries could help themselves and prevent harm in the nation.
The resource-poor countries face many challenges. For instance, they have a high population; thus, they will experience hunger. Many children die daily due to food-related diseases. The illness could include kwashiorkor, marasmus, among others. These diseases are preventable. The money that rich country could use to prevent children from dying as a result of the food-related conditions are minimal when you consider the spending of the wealthy nations. For example, diarrhea disease that leads to the death of around 16,000 kids each day would be prevented by the use of the ten-cent packets of the oral rehydration salts, as well as antibiotics. These usually cost under a dollar in a resource-rich country such as the United States of America.
Moreover, the help required to prevent the great child disease and death due to malnutrition is equal to the money spent in advertising cigarettes in the U.S. Therefore, it is within the ability of individuals in the rich countries to help the poor ones. The individuals could help the poor countries individually or collectively. For instance, the rich countries could decide as a nation that it will assist the impoverished country as a nation. Individuals from the rich country could also sacrifice their resources to help the poor nation. For example, Bill Gates could sacrifice to help a needy country since he is in position.
However, according to Peter Singer, what individuals plan to give is determined by what they consider moral significance (Andre & Velasquez, 2008). Some countries may consider assisting a country with equipment that could not help reduce poverty. Therefore, giving is determined by the rich country perception of moral significance. As a result, different nations will help poor countries with various items. It will be influenced by the capability of the nations, as well as what they consider to be of moral significance.
Furthermore, giving aids to the resource-poor countries require that the rich one sacrifice their luxury. However, failing to help individuals experiencing hunger is a morally reprehensible, just like failing to save a kid from drowning in the pool because someone does not want to wet his/her clothes. Therefore, resource-rich countries need to give aids to the poor.
Secondly, according to the principle of justice, the rich states have a moral obligation to help the poor (Hassoun, 2017). Justice claims that individuals are compensated for the harm and injustice they suffered at the hands of others. As a result, poverty in developing countries results from the unjust and exploitative government policies, and companies in the rich nations. For example, the wealthy country’s protectionist trade policies have resulted in a low price for poor countries (Mertens, 2016). These are trade barriers, and they maximize poverty in third-world countries. Therefore, it is of moral obligation to give aids to the poor country. It is the just thing to do.
Thirdly, contrary to popular belief, it is a rich country that has a threat to the resources of the states. For instance, America uses resources thirty times more than the poor countries such as African. Therefore, they should give aids to them since they use most of the resources.
Buying luxury things, while others are starving, is not morally right. It is the same as killing individuals. According to Peter, allowing someone to die because of the hunger can prevent it, morally speaking, there is no different from killing a human being. Killing causes harm to individuals, and moral obligation claims a duty to maximize happiness and minimize suffering (Curtis & Cosgrove, 2017). Therefore, when someone spends money to purchase maybe VCR, knowing that he/she would instead give the money to the relief agency that could prevent deaths as a result of the starvation means that the individuals are morally accountable for the deaths. The argument that one did not do anything to cause death is not relevant. It is a similar case as speeding in an intersection, and therefore causing death to a pedestrian. The driver is morally responsible for the death, whether he/she intended to do it or not. Thus, according to morality obligation, individuals should live at the same subsistence level (Mancilla, 2019). Thereby, rich countries need to give aid to poor ones.
Therefore, during these years, many individuals are suffering, and it is not appropriate for them to buy new clothes jewelry, among other luxury items. Even though individuals claim that it is their own money, they could use whatever they want. However, morality does not allow that. It suggests that individuals should maximize happiness. One could maximize happiness through helping people, which assist in alleviating poverty.
Lastly, the bible recommends that Christian should help the poor (Brister et al., 2016). They should not help because it is an expression of the love of the Christ but, because it is pleasing to God (Brown, 2016). Helping the poor also led to more blessings. Therefore, resource-rich countries should give aids to the poor one. It is one of the ways to express the love of Jesus. Also, helping the poor countries is pleasing to God. It will make the rich nations to be blessed beyond their blessing. According to the book of psalms 42-1-2, blessed is the one who considers the poor, and God will remember him during the times of the challenges (Cortines, 2017). One approach of considering the poor could be through assisting them. As a result, the resource-rich countries should help the poor ones.
References
Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (2008). World Hunger: A Moral Response. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
Mancilla, A. (2019). The human right to subsistence. Philosophy Compass, 14(9), e12618.
Brister, J., Litton, J., Lynn, M., & Tippens, T. K. (2016). More blessed to give than to receive: A model of lifetime charitable giving. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 19(1), 38-56.
Brown, P. (2016). Wealth, Work, and the Holy Poor: Early Christian Monasticism between Syria and Egypt. Irish Theological Quarterly, 81(3), 233-245.
Cortines, J. (2017). Why Do Christians Give? Christian Law., 13, 9.
Curtis, B., & Cosgrove, S. (2017). Ethics and action–what should you do about global poverty?. Understanding Global Poverty: Causes, Capabilities, and Human Development.
Hassoun, N. (2017). Fair Trade: An Imperfect Obligation?. Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric, 10(2).
Mertens, T. (2016). Reflections on Global Responsibilities and the Nature of Morality’. Ethics in an Era of Globalization, 183-198.
Waddington, C. H. (2017). The ethical animal. Routledge.
Monamy, V. (2017). Animal experimentation: A guide to the issues. Cambridge University Press.
Johannsen, K. (2017). Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(2), 333-345.
Curtin, S. (2016). Animals and Tourism: Extending the Moral Obligations of Care.
Attfield, R., & Humphreys, R. (2017). Justice and Non-Human Animals-Part II. Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics, 8(1), 44-57.
Korsgaard, C. M. (2018). Fellow creatures: Our obligations to the other animals. Oxford University Press.
Jamieson, D. (2017). Animals and ethics, agents, and patients. In The Routledge handbook of philosophy of animal minds (pp. 461-468). Routledge.
Nobis, N. (2016). Animals and Ethics 101: Thinking Critically About Animal Rights. Open Philosophy Press.
Just, A. (2018). The Importance of Being a Dog, or How to Bring Human Beings and Animals Back into Ethics. Etyka, 56, 121-131.