Anne McAdoo

Environmental Ethics

Drexler PHIL 2300

12/08/18

Ending the Justification of the Morally Unjust

Thesis: Should animals be considered within the moral circle?

In a small town, known as the birthplace of American road racing, Watkins Glen, New York is

home to 271 acres which shelter more than 500 animals. The Farm Sanctuary was founded in 1986 to

help fight back against the factory farming of animals. The Farm rescues abused farm animals and

allows them to roam freely throughout their remaining days. While to some, the idea that animals are

living creatures and have the right to live without the constant fear of slaughter or maltreatment is not a

topic which needs to be debated. For others, the understanding that animals offer sources of food is

resolute. No matter what you chose to consume, looking at the debate, philosophy proposes a chain of

ideas which intersect, revoke, and verify one another.

The Moral Circle. Can you explain it? Imagine the VIP section at a professional sports game.

While there are living beings both in and out of the VIP section, they are segregated between those

worthy of special treatment and those whom are not to be considered. This is the idea of the Moral

Circle. Whomever lies within the circle is considered when making decisions; their rights are considered.
 Seventeenth century, French Philosopher, René Descartes, believed that only humans belonged

in the moral circle, as he believed all animals are machines. His most famous quote, “I think, therefore, I

am” (Descartes), is the answer to his logic. Descartes states that humans have the ability to reason. He

argued that animals do not possess the ability to reason and therefore they should not be considered

within the moral circle. But why is the ability to reason considered superior? It is a question which faces

much debate as arguments tend to beg the question: reason is better, why, because humans have it,

therefore humans are better, but why? While there are many skeptics regarding the granting of rights

to animals, Damon Linker, a writer for THE WEEK, an online magazine, published an article about his

disagreement for animal rights. While Linker may not be for animal rights, he makes the point, “…we

should treat animals decently not because they're just like human beings, but rather because they're

not.” He claims that something of superiority is obliged to act with “human concern and sympathy”.

Although he is not an activist for animal rights, his point is morally sound.

A machine does not learn and grow. A machine only processes what data it has been given. As

computers do more over the ages, do they learn more? No, humans program new information into

these machines. If animals were in fact “machines”, as Descartes claims, then how do we explain

instances like such: pods of orcas changing their hunting tactics to work together as food sources

dwindle, dolphins which have protected humans from a nearby lurking Great White, or dogs who mope

and become depressed after a fellow household canine passes? Animals have proven to be intellectual,

have their own language, feel pleasure and pain and even, in the case of the dolphins, chosen to protect

another species from harm. Is this not growth? These acts and mental abilities prove that animals are

not in fact machines, but rather sentient beings.

Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher whose ideas would expand the moral circle. While

Descartes believed the moral circle ended at the ability to reason, Singer presented the theory of

Sentience. Sentience is the capacity for experiencing pleasure and pain. Singer argued, if a being can
suffer, ‘actions are wrong as they tend to produce that suffering’”. Jeremy Bentham, English

philosopher of the 18th and 19th centuries set the moral standard with the idea of maximizing happiness

and minimizing suffering. Bentham said, “The question is not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can

they suffer?” (Bentham). If animals are in fact sentient beings, in that they can experience pain and

suffering, than animals should indeed qualify to be considered within the moral circle. When we factory

farm animals, when we raise them and have the intention to slaughter them for food, these actions

would be considered morally unjust as animals suffer from our intentions.

Another aspect of morality is argued by Tom Regan, an American philosopher whom passed just

last year in 2017. Regan argues that cruelty, as described by English philosopher, John Locke, implies

intention. Meaning, that if one intends to be cruel, than the act is considered morally unjustifiable. The

idea suggests that if one should feel pleasure from causing suffering, the act is morally unjust.

Therefore, when we raise animals for food, we have the intention to one day slaughter them for further

consumption which would be considered a morally unjust act. In cases like these, it would be necessary

for humans to consider animals in the moral circle. Tom Regan also confronts the difference between

intrinsic and instrumental value. When something has instrumental value, we look at its worth or its

ability to be useful to us-- in which it carries a purpose to be served out. An object’s usefulness

determines its value. Descartes believed that the human mind or will could impose itself on animals and

use them for a purpose. He saw animals as tools and valued their expediency. Whereas Regan believed

that animals held intrinsic value. Objects which have intrinsic value make their own decisions and have

an active role in the world. Alice Walker, author and Pulitzer Prize winner for her novel The Color Purple

said it best, “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any

more than black people were made for whites and women were made for men.”

Tom Regan’s Animal Right’s Approach critiques the moral theory, the greatest amount of good

for the greatest number of people. The Animal Right’s Approach, however, states that even if an act
bring the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people, the act is still considered immoral

if the act violates a moral agent’s dignity or rights. In this case, a moral agent is anything considered

inside the moral circle. For instance, while many are fed from the meat industry, the act is still

considered immoral as it violates the rights of animals. Keep in mind, over 1 billion animals are

slaughtered each week around the world (NEWS).

Gene Baur, Co-founder and President of The Farm Sanctuary, said that we see animals as

consumable products and that the relationship is one of exploitation (Debates). While we look at

animals as commodities, animals suffer a great deal more than their slaughter; they suffer from diseases

and injuries during their already gloomy life. Even Albert Einstein stated, “We can’t solve problems by

using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Some believe the plant based

movement is a step backward. Unfortunately, this vision is misconstrued. In actuality, the plant based

movement looks to the future. It is an awareness that humans no longer need to survive off of the

systems which were put in place long ago. Not only can we thrive from plant based foods, but animals

can no longer continue to live and be treated as such. The suffering of these animals is caused by

humankind. While no one desires to feel at fault or responsible for the mistreatment of animals, an

unfortunate cycle of blame and anger roars rather than people coming together to better the industry.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”,

Mahatma Gandhi.

To think that animals are not sentient beings; that they cannot suffer is the greatest myth of all.

Have you ever watched a mother cow cry out or chase after her calf when it was taken away? Have you

seen how she stands over her calf, knowing someone will come and take it away? Have you watched

male chicks be sent into gas chambers or thrown on a conveyor belt to be shredded alive? A machine is

an object which does not chose one life over another. It does not get emotionally involved. The
machines which slaughter animals are often not a mechanical device, but rather the lack of empathetic

hands. Are humans the real machines?

Sources:

-Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Printed for T. Payne,

1789.

-Debates, IntelligenceSquared. YouTube, YouTube, 4 Dec. 2013,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCcJq56ZMJg.

-Descartes René. Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the

Sciences. 1637.

-“Facts – Farm Animals.” Animal Matters, www.animalmatters.org/facts/farm/.

-Linker, Damon. “No, Animals Don't Have Rights.” The Week, The Week, 17 Jan. 2014,

theweek.com/articles/452715/no-animals-dont-have-rights.

-NEWS, PLANT BASED. YouTube, YouTube, 11 Nov. 2018,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=goBKGTYl2fo&list=PLpOwQ_R54rnZvph8Me-8Bh-uWr4lTtHkD.

-Regan, Tom. Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: an Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers, 2003.