StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Value of Human and Nonhuman Beings - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
The paper "Value of Human and Nonhuman Beings" tells that there is rising awareness among the human society about the abuse of nonhuman beings in zoos, forests, households and even circuses. There is also improved legislation in numerous nations to protect the nonhumans in their natural habitat…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER98.2% of users find it useful
Value of Human and Nonhuman Beings
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Value of Human and Nonhuman Beings"

? Who are we to say that the suffering of a human being is more terrible than the suffering of a non-human being, or that it matters more? Introduction Sufferings have been continuing hand-in-hand with human society since long past which has, however, to a certain extent relaxed in the modern social order. On the other hand, the nonhumans are still observed to undergo tremendous suffering even though various measures have been taken to mitigate their pain. In this respect, at many instances, human society has been noted to raise voices on behalf of the nonhumans to reduce the burden of their ill-fate of being incapable to communicate. In this regards, Goodall (1993) narrated various instances illustrating the sufferings of both humans and nonhumans targeting on the role played by humans as protestors, when the human society itself is suffering by almost a similar degree. He even debates on the significance of such arguments or rather protests made by humans stating the sufferings of non-humans to be greater. It is in this context that the sufferings of human and nonhuman beings have emerged as a subject of great dispute suggesting that both should be provided with certain degree of prominence. Although unnecessary suffering of nonhumans is brutal, sufferings of human beings can also be proved as similarly terrible (Goodall, 1993, pp. 10-18). This paper describes the significances of suffering of nonhuman beings and human beings from different perspectives based on the statement of Goodall (1993) that “Who are we to say that the suffering of a human being is more terrible than the suffering of a nonhuman being, or that it matters more?” (pp. 15). The objective of the paper is to understand the viewpoints of both types of sufferings and develop a rational understanding towards the issue. Discussion There is rising awareness among the human society about abuse of nonhuman beings in zoos, forests, households and even circuses. There is also improved legislation in numerous nations to protect the nonhumans in the natural habitat. This motivates the humans to usually spend a considerable amount of time, energy and money for the well-being of nonhuman beings. However, it is to be noted that in every corner of the world, human beings are identified to be suffering due to several reasons such as hunger and lack of residential facilities among other causes. There are also circumstances of suffering among humans with respect to being tortured by the police and other powerful status holders. At times, it has also been observed that the children are intentionally distorted after destroying their body limbs (such as eyes, hands or legs) in order to make them begging. Besides, humans were also sold in return of money or being forced to adopt prostitution and other unkind living styles. Thus, no matter how people raise voices against suffering of nonhuman beings, it cannot be misled by the fact that human beings also suffer from same misery compared to the nonhumans (Goodall, 1993, pp. 10-18). Value of Human and Nonhuman Beings There is increasing concern among people about the value of human as well as nonhuman beings. Generally, human beings attempt to increase cognizance about sufferings of nonhumans who are raised in firms, zoos, laboratories or in circuses developing legislation in order to protect them. However, they delude themselves by believing that human also suffer similarly in comparison with nonhumans (Goodall, 1993, pp. 10-18). Based on this particular thought, it can be argued that in recent phenomenon, an increasing importance have been rendered towards protecting the genre of nonhuman species treating the humans to be the superior most and certainly the liable one to take the plunge. The increasing rate of environment protection awareness can also be identified as a rudiment towards such notions rather than focusing on their sufferings. But, does that mean values of nonhumans are more than the humans? It is true that nonhumans are imprisoned in zoos, and exploited for public entertainment. They are enslaved and often tortured mentally as well as physically in laboratories for the improvement of science. However, these kinds of exploitations are often overlooked by the policy makers, presuming that they are being utilized for the purpose of human wellbeing (Goodall, 1993, pp. 10-18). Based on this manifestation, the role of humans to define the severity of nonhuman sufferings can be argued, which in the modern society, have been set on the premises of human interests rather than the degree of pain felt by the tortured living being. Yet, the sufferings of humans are also not much different than nonhumans. Humans have also passed the era of slavery where they were treated with almost to the similar value of the nonhumans. In present days, there are still numerous of social unfairness and mistreatments practiced on human beings who are perceived to be weaker, but unlike nonhumans, human sufferings are not publicly overlooked by the policy makers and judged on the premises of the interests or benefits obtained but rather on the basis of the degree of ruthlessness of the torturer (Goodall, 1993, pp. 10-18). This again apparently defines that human society has repeatedly provided greater value to human sufferings rather than to that of the nonhumans which contradicts the justness of human beings in arguing whether nonhuman sufferings are more severe than humans. Nonhuman Beings as Objects Human beings often treat animals as objects despite several legislations which are developed for protecting them. It is in this regards that respecting such creatures as living beings and in order to take the sufferings of animals seriously, they should not be treated as objects. However, from an in-depth point of view, a significant difference can be identified between what human state about animals’ treatment and how they really treat them. A few sociologists believe that both humans and nonhumans have the equal right to live a non-suffering life. Hence, it is immoral to exterminate nonhumans only because of making coats or shooting for games. The nonhumans also must be secured from acts of brutality even when they are used for developing medicines for the purpose of longevity of human lives. The data from United States Department of Agriculture depicts that human kill, on an average, above 8 billion animals per annum for food. Furthermore, the report also attributes that this figure is minor in comparison to the death figure of animals worldwide. They are transported to distant locations in overcrowded situations, within dirty containers and ultimately killed for satisfying human requirements. Furthermore, humans kill billions of fishes and other sea creatures every day. They catch them with fishhook and leave for suffering in the nets. With respect to wild animals, at times humans also hunt them not because of recreational purposes. The wounded animals often experience a slow death for long hours and sometimes for long days due to loss of immense amount of blood or due to other severe damages (Francione, 2009, pp. 108-142). Human Beings as Objects In ancient times, human beings were treated as slaves by people who were assumed to be superior in terms of their social status. The salves acted as property to their masters in the ancient society. The reaction towards slavery of humans can provide significant approach for studying slavery among nonhumans. The human slaves during that period of time had no right to live freely, i.e. they could not decide upon the utilisation of labours, they could not possess any assets, they were unable to be a witness in the court, and even they had no power as parents where their children were possessions of the owners. The sufferings of human slaves in ancient periods, is similar with the suffering of animals in present times, though the treatment differs, as the animals can receive loving treatment from owners or can be used for increasing the revenue by farmers. Unlike slaves in traditional time, the animals have suffered loss of control on their life. The major strength, the slaves had with respect to animals, is the power of rebellion. In case of animal they are unable to rebel for themselves which is often perceived to be sole reason that they can only be controlled by humans (Cavalieri & Singer, 1993, pp. 304-312). Equal Consideration to the Issue Today, the deep discrepancy of treatment of animals by human beings is related with the position of animal as possession. The treatment of animal is determined by the value human provides to them. Often, people claim that animals are not simply objects but in reality they are treated to be the property of human beings. Nonetheless, the current legal framework enforced in various nations play a major role to motivate the owner of nonhumans to ensure that they does not harm others or destroy others’ property. The animal can be pets, laboratory objects or even used as food objects which are solely exploited for the purpose of human well-being. However, it does not justify the fact that nonhumans get lesser consideration to their requirements and interests. Although it is illogical to recommend that human interests and nonhuman interests can be well-adjusted, nonhumans can be secured by legislations for treating them in a well-manner by the owners. Nonetheless, there are several contexts where suffering of humans and nonhumans cannot be justified. For instance, the “Animal Welfare Act” which controls the utilisation of nonhumans in laboratory experiments levies no expressive restrictions on the sufferings on animals (Francione, 2009, pp. 108-142). The suffering of nonhumans is significant issue of concern and due to this reason people use legislation in order to encourage safety of nonhumans. However, it can also be stated that certain practices on nonhumans cannot be protected when the benefits are serious. If the benefits gathered from sufferings of nonhumans are too small to justify, these practices should not be allowed to continue. Furthermore, deriving pleasure from observing the sufferings of animal must be termed as a horrific act. Letting nonhuman beings to suffer from negligence or for business purposes is also believed to be unnecessary by a few like-minded sociologists and thus can also be alleged as unkind acts (Francione, 2009, pp. 108-142). It is morally incorrect to misuse the humans or the nonhuman beings by physical and psychological means. As both humans and nonhumans have realised the agony of pain and the feeling of despair, there should not be any unreasonable sufferings to either of them. As argued by Francione, 2009, although nonhuman beings can be used for the welfare of humans, it does not denote they should feel pain and despair for the pleasure of humans. There are several animal welfare regulations which are generally used for taking the sufferings of nonhumans seriously. In this respect, the laws regarding nonhumans reflect the requirement of balance between the interests of nonhumans in contrast to interests of humans for determining whether the suffering of nonhuman is indispensable. The balance in this sense is evaluation of comparative strengths and differing interests. If sufferings of humans for restricting the use of nonhumans be more important than the interests of animals, only on such grounds, suffering of nonhumans can be regarded as indispensable (Francione, 2009, pp. 108-142). Conclusion The discussion above apparently denotes that humans have mostly treated nonhumans as special at times and similarly as objects in instances based on their sole interests of obtaining value to the existence of the human genre. As was mentioned by Francione (2009), treating animals as objects and making them suffer for the purpose of food to the human beings are justified while torturing them in zoos and disturbing their wild habitat is unjust. A question in this concern arises where it can be argued that whether the degree of sufferings for the nonhumans differ in these circumstances so as to refer one to be just and the other to be unjust. On the similar note, as connoted by Cavalieri & Singer (1993), human sufferings are also not less than those of the nonhumans. This further favours Goodall (1993)’s argument that how can the human society refer nonhuman sufferings to be more noteworthy than that faced by the humans, even in the so called ‘modernism oriented just society’, when the degree of suffering is almost the same with differing method of torturing. It is to be remembered in this context that both humans and nonhumans are living beings who have the ability to feel pain and react accordingly. Valuing the long practiced food chain of the biological cycle, it is of no doubt that humans need to collect their food from nonhumans which must not be referred as an immoral torture. On the contrary, making humans or nonhumans suffer, for the sole purpose of gaining profits or recreational excitement is indeed immoral and must be valued as equal in both the instances. References Cavalieri, P., & Singer, P. (1993). The great ape project — and beyond. The Great Ape Project, pp. 304-312. Francione, G. L. (2009). Animals – Property or Persons. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 108-142. Goodall, J. (1993). Chimpanzees - bridging the gap. The Great Ape Project, pp. 10-18. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Animal Human Cultures Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 1”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/gender-sexual-studies/1453986-animal-human-cultures
(Animal Human Cultures Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words - 1)
https://studentshare.org/gender-sexual-studies/1453986-animal-human-cultures.
“Animal Human Cultures Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words - 1”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/gender-sexual-studies/1453986-animal-human-cultures.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Value of Human and Nonhuman Beings

Is Killing Nonhuman Animals Wrong and the branch topic is Regan and His Critics

The bigger portion of Regan's logic is based on the moral beliefs of human beings that set certain boundaries and pointers of what is right and wrong.... The bigger portion of Regan's logic is based on the moral beliefs of human beings that set certain boundaries and pointers of what is right and wrong.... At the same time, however, I think that there are exceptional cases when killing animals can be justified; for example, and animal is seriously ill or contaminated with some serious disease; or using an animal for tests needed to save lives of human beings....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Rights for the Non-human Animals

The author states that postmaterialism also involves the changes brought about in the realm of human-nonhuman relations.... Postmaterialism also involves the changes brought about in the realm of human-nonhuman relations.... The purpose of the essay 'Rights for the Non-human Animals' is to look at the possibilities of broadly defining rights theory in order to recognise the rights of nonhuman animals.... The purpose of the essay is to look at the possibilities of broadly defining rights theory in order to recognise the rights of nonhuman animals....
13 Pages (3250 words) Essay

Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics

Through failing to adequately recognize the sentience of these creatures, for instance, the kangaroos, the policy and laws in operation pay insufficient regard to the ethical needs of kangaroos as conscious beings.... This essay "Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics" is about two model approaches that place attention on the problems facing the endangered species, though they advocate for different rationales, in the area of giving animals preference, as opposed to the protection of the ecosystem at their detriment....
6 Pages (1500 words) Essay

Speciesism in Humans

He cites Bentham's viewpoint and emphasizes that all sentient beings, all human and nonhuman animals included, should be given equal consideration.... Can there be a larger example of human speciesism than this?... With the last man departing from this planet, it is true that the instrumental value of redwood turns to nil from the human viewpoint but not from the viewpoint of other species as they will continue to live on this earth.... Speciesism in Humans Peter singer argues that human beings since their beginning have indulged into speciesism – a domineering human behavior over nonhumans and that needs to be condemned....
6 Pages (1500 words) Essay

Peter Singer's Argument in The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues

Singer also clearly states the central issue of his investigation and doesn't engage in elaborate circumlocution in advancing the argument's central concerns; he states, 'The general question, then, is how the effects of our actions on the environment of nonhuman beings should figure in our deliberations about what we ought to do'.... f one makes a brief perusal of some of Peter Singer's writings on ethical constructs, such as 'Foreign Aid and the Moral value of Freedom', one notices that one of Singer's predominant strengths as a writer is his ability to distill complex ideas into easily understandable prose....
6 Pages (1500 words) Book Report/Review

Philosophy - animal rights by Peter Singer

In the article ‘The place of nonhumans in environmental issues', Peter Singer opines that humans do not treat nonhuman beings equally though they evidently have the right to be treated equally.... According to the scholar, nonhuman beings too have interests and rights, and.... He says that when a ‘reservoir' is constructed, though people express concern that it would drown a valley teeming with wildlife, the reason behind this concern often lies in the fact that the valley has Aditya Santoso Philosophy – Ethics – Sara Rettus 2/6 ‘The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues” In the article ‘The place of nonhumans in environmental issues', Peter Singer opines that humans do not treat nonhuman beings equally though they evidently have the right to be treated equally....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Utilitarianism versus Kant on the Treatment of Nonhuman Animals

Utilitarianism accounts for equal moral concern to human and nonhuman beings which mean killing an animal for other reasons other than food is wrong, bullfighting and even using animals for medical experimentations is unjustifiable.... tilitarianism accounts for both human and nonhuman rights.... The author states that non-human animals are ought to be treated the same way as human beings are treated in order to consider those actions right or wrong....
4 Pages (1000 words) Assignment

Roles of Nonhuman Animals in Society

The domestication of animals enabled human beings to use animals in farm activities such as plowing, irrigating, and transportation of harvested materials which were then bartered or sold (Alger and Alger, 1999).... Animals relieved human beings from hard labor and accorded them the opportunity to work on other development activities other than sourcing for food (Yates, 2011).... The paper "Roles of nonhuman Animals in Society" portrays animals displaying the characteristics displayed by humans though not at the same level or extent....
11 Pages (2750 words) Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us