Introduction
There is a lot of controversy around the issue of animal rights in the area of applied ethics. Taking into consideration the author’s point of view, the objective of this essay is to investigate and assess the viewpoint that was selected for the article about animal rights. An opinion is expressed by the author on the ethical treatment of animals, and the author provides arguments to support that opinion. Following this, I will determine whether or not the author’s probable prejudice undermines the legitimacy of the argument as a whole.
Part I: Explanation of the Author’s Argument
The chosen author is a staunch advocate for animal rights, arguing that animals have a worth that is intrinsic to them and that they need to be included in talks about ethics. In the context of the debate on applied ethics and animal rights, the author contends that the ethical position is to acknowledge the concept that animals are sentient creatures that are capable of experiencing a variety of emotions, including pleasure, fear, and other feelings (Walker,2007). Therefore, it is ethically obligated to decrease the amount of pain and suffering that animals experience.
There is data from the scientific community that supports this assumption. The author makes the observation that a great number of animals possess sophisticated cognitive and emotional capabilities. In the context of industrial farming, animal experimentation, and other forms of maltreatment, the author argues that it is repugnant to subject animals to needless agony. This assertion is based on the facts that have been presented. Each and every sentient being, irrespective of their species, ought to endure the least amount of pain that is humanly feasible, according to the author’s ethical worldview.
Part II: Presenting a Potential Problem
In spite of the fact that the author presents a compelling case in support of animal rights, there are a number of cultural and economic variables that might make it challenging to put these rights into effect (Walker,2007). Laws that are especially stringent with regard to animal rights may have unforeseen repercussions for human societies, particularly those areas that are heavily dependent on enterprises that use animals as a source of labor.
It is possible that countries whose economies are strongly dependent on agriculture and farming could experience job losses and economic instability as a consequence of legislation that is excessively rigorous regarding animal rights (Walker,2007). In addition, the establishment of a global standard for animal rights may result in difficulties for certain kinds of hunting and rituals that include animals and are firmly rooted in particular cultures.
Evaluation of the Author’s Position in Light of the Objection
Taking into consideration that we are in agreement with the author, we are obligated to answer the counterargument that stringent animal rights legislation can have adverse impacts on human civilization. The author needs to place an emphasis on ethical frameworks that are capable of properly balancing the requirements and prerequisites of both species (Walker,2007). The only way for businesses to avoid causing irreversible damage to their economies would be to incorporate more humanitarian practices into their operations gradually.
If one considers themselves to be in disagreement with the author’s point of view, they can argue that stringent animal rights regulations are not essential since the dangers to human civilizations are too great (Walker,2007). Within the context of this particular occurrence, the objection offers a reasonable critique of the argument that the author has presented. When this occurs, the moral dilemma that arises is how to strike a balance between the requirements of animal care and those of maintaining the economic and social stability of human civilization.
When undertaking a study of this complaint, it is crucial to accept that the issue at hand is not simply reduced to a basic conflict between human interests and animal rights. This is something that must be acknowledged. In order for an ethical framework to be considered comprehensive, it is necessary for it to take into consideration the interdependencies that exist between these components and to look for ways to lessen the amount of harm that happens in both domains.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the author’s assertion that animals are morally worthy sentient entities serves as the foundation for the argument that animal rights should be protected. The author contends that humans have a moral duty to spare animals the pain and suffering that they go through throughout their lives. On the other side, nations that rely heavily on tourism may be the ones to experience the effects of stringent rules regarding animal rights. It is necessary to do a comprehensive analysis of the author’s perspective, taking into account the requirements of both humans and different kinds of animals. No matter what one’s stance is on the topic of animal rights, the most essential thing is to work toward the creation of ethical frameworks that are capable of addressing the many different aspects of the problem while also taking into consideration society as a whole.
Reference
Walker, R. L. (2007). The good life for non-human animals: What virtue requires of humans. Working virtue: Virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems, 173-189. Pdf.
write