Surname 1

Name

Professor

Title

Date

Utilitarianism position on the duties to animals debate

Utilitarianism, as established by Jeremy Bentham, provides that people should engage

in acts which promote happiness and pleasure. They should also do acts that are moral and

those that do not cause any pain. The utilitarian position of the duty to animals would thus be

the protection of animals from harm. As argued by Roger Scruton, animals provide many

things to human beings not limited to food and company. However, a utilitarian position

would be that we still have duties towards animals since the fall under our charity and this all

depends on the relationship that we have with them. We rely on them as pets, domestic

animals, and as wild creatures.

Human beings should thus not ignore animal feelings just because of the fact that they

are not conscious beings. Animals are also culpable to pain, hunger and suffering only for the

fact that they cannot express these feelings as human beings do. No animals should thus be

treated with priority in comparison to others merely based on nature since this is a

discrimination, which according to utilitarianism, causes pain to the animals. Animals should

therefore not be used for laboratory tests, as there are alternatives that human beings can use

in place.

The happiness of animals is curtailed once animals are forced into certain forms of

upbringing such as confinement to cages, slaughtering, branding, castration, and

transportation. Under utilitarianism, if the processes under which animals are raised and later

transformed into food cause stress and frustration to animals, they are not worthwhile.
 Surname 2

Human beings, therefore, have duties to animals to ensure that if animals are to be used for

food production at all, then the processes that they are subjected to should be at the very least

natural. This means that cattle have to be allowed to graze in their natural settings and are not

be confined for the purposes of being fattened.

Furthermore, under utilitarianism, animals should not be treated as inferiors as

compared to people. Animals via various analyses have been proved to have similar traits to

human beings such as being able to learn, use tools in their activities, and use some forms of

language to communicate. Chimpanzees have successfully been taught the sign language,

gorillas in Tanzanian jungles are capable of making sponges by chewing leaves, and there

have been scientific discoveries that whales and dolphins engage in some form of verbal

communication. Some animals, such as primates, based on the Darwinian theories, have the

same ancestry as human beings. On the same argument, primates have the same anatomical

composition as human beings. Morality, based on utilitarianism, provides that it is not good

to take the life of ones for the sake of others.

Kantianism position on the duties to animals

Kant moral theory provides that the rightness or wrongness of an action does not

depend on the repercussions but as to whether it fulfills the rightful duty. Kants theory is

based on the idea that rational being should be respected. In a view of this theory, Kantian

position on animals may be regarded as opposite to that of utilitarianism. Hence, the debate

is, largely, anti-animal.

Kantianism thus supports the proposition that animals can be used in research as long

as the end results are for the benefit of rational beings. The rational beings, as noted by Roger

Scruton, are conscious beings, and this is what humans fall under. Kantianism hence supports

the imposition of tests on animals i.e. tests such as the LD50 and Draize Test on rabbits. The
 Surname 3

repercussion that the tests may have on the animals does not matter if the end results are to

fulfill the rightful duty of saving thousands or millions of people suffering from diseases.

The rightful duty that Kantianism supports could have different interpretations, and

this all levels down to anti-animal position. The rightful duty can be rightful to make profits

for the company, providing food to human beings at the lowest price, discovery of medicines

that can heal human maladies amongst other activities. All of these can be termed as moral

depending on the context. Kantianism thus supports all manner of negative acts being

committed against animals as long as the end result is to perform a rightful duty to conscious

beings.

My position

My choice would be a combination of both utilitarianism and Kantianism. This is for

the reason that under utilitarianism, it has been proved that there are alternatives to animals in

carrying out research. It is also immoral to harass animals and force them to be brought up in

a stressful environment for selfish purposes such as profits. They should be allowed to grow

and/or be developed in their natural settings. Under the Kantian approach, Animals can be

utilized for food; however, they have to be raised without suffering. It would be very difficult

to know what animals have been brought up without suffering.