Paste your essay in here.. What part of humanity explains that humans have more moral status than any other non-human? Some may say there is a significant difference between the natural world and homo sapiens. The natural world can be defined as all other animals, plants, or other living beings that were not made or caused by humans. Those who would agree with my prior statement are those who wish to justify immoral actions towards non-humans— actions that result in pain and suffering, and most often, death. The others who would disagree with my statement are willing to further question the meaning of our actions, much like some of our favorite philosophers: most of which argue that despite humans being different— both from themselves and from other animals— these differences do not justify any immoral actions against non-humans.
The idea of moral consideration simply put is giving careful thought to proper conduct. Going hand-in-hand with moral consideration is moral considerability. Moral considerability is used to indicate whether or not one is “worthy” of moral consideration. By definition, a morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged. Therefore, people believe that because humans are the only species capable of recognizing moral claims, only humans are morally considerable. But while we investigate some of the reasons why we believe only humans can be morally wronged, we discover that those who recognize moral claims, and those who suffer moral wronging’s are not exclusive to one another.
Lets take a step back and attempt to understand why we justify cruel acts towards animals. Many would make the argument that humans have superiority, and because of that superiority they can exploit other animals. According to Australian Philosopher Peter Singer, speciesism is, “…a prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species.” In other words, speciesism is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals. To make this easier to understand, speciesism is often compared to the same sort of bigotry as racism, or sexism. Those who oppose this arbitrary idea believe that giving humans greater rights than non-humans is equal to giving white people greater rights than non-white people. They believe that a difference in species is morally irrelevant just as a difference in race is not morally relevant among humans.
Human exceptionalism is just like speciesism in the sense that it can be perceived in many ways. One more common way of understanding human exceptionalism is knowing there are specific human capacities, and due to these capacities humans have a higher moral status than other animals. Some of these capacities can include: developing human ties, or expressing emotions. Most people believe that those capacities are human-specific, but that is false. Many species of primates show intense familial bonds. Bonds that are so complex, that when they lose a loved-one, they can experience such desperation that they will “die of sorrow.” Along with their fierce bonding, acts of affection are also very common within canids and primates. Less solitary animals are known to sacrifice their own safety so that the “weak” members of their family will not die alone. They also understand the expression of multiple emotions from their similar species. For example, if an animal is angry, other animals of its species would know to leave it alone. Proving that neither of these capacities and specific to human beings.
There is also the concept of sentience, which is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. Most eighteenth-century philosophers used sentience to distinguish the ability to think from the ability to feel. Utilitarian philosophers faithfully maintain the importance of happiness, pleasure, and satisfaction of interests, and the avoidance of pain, suffering, and frustration of interests. Jeremy Bentham was one philosopher who defended the idea of sentience, he wrote:
The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the ossacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.
Another philosopher, Christine Korsgaard has a similar mindset to Benthams. She stated that, “An animal’s cries express pain, and they mean that there is a reason, a reason to change its conditions.” She was one philosopher who believed that when we gave pity to a suffering animal, it was because we were sensing a reason. Therefore, when we face an animal experiencing pain or suffering, we recognize their claim on us. In recognizing that claim we can conclude that beings who suffer are morally considerable.
So, once again I will ask, what part of humanity explains that humans have more moral status than any other non-human? By breaking down two mere arguments such as speciesism, and sentience, we can clearly see that non-human animals should have equal moral consideration compared to humans. They think, breathe, and feel just as we do. The only difference is non-human animals do not have a voice, and we need to be the ones to give it to them.