What Is Your Opinion On Human Rights Even When Narrowed ✓ Solved

What Is Your Opinion Should Human Rights Even When Narrowly Define

What is your opinion? Should “human rights” (even when narrowly defined) remain limited to humans? Or should we provide some form of enhanced legal status to other nonhuman animals, like great apes or cetaceans?

Paper For Above Instructions

The discourse surrounding human rights has traditionally revolved around the rights of human beings, defined by various international covenants and declarations. However, a growing body of thought advocates for the extension of certain rights or legal protections beyond humans to include nonhuman animals, particularly those that exhibit advanced cognitive abilities, such as great apes and cetaceans. This discussion identifies a fundamental shift in our understanding of rights and moral consideration, urging society to reconsider the arbitrary lines drawn between species.

One compelling argument for extending rights to nonhuman animals is based on cognitive complexity. Species like chimpanzees, dolphins, and elephants exhibit behaviors indicating self-awareness, problem-solving capabilities, and emotional depth. For instance, the Mirror Test demonstrates self-recognition in great apes, suggesting a level of consciousness that warrants moral consideration (Gallup, 1970). If rights are predicated on cognitive abilities and the capacity to experience suffering, then to exclude certain animals from these rights due to speciesism—the prejudice against nonhuman animals—is ethically questionable.

Moreover, legal systems worldwide are beginning to shift towards recognizing the inherent value of nonhuman life. Countries like New Zealand and India have enacted laws that recognize certain rights for animals, focusing on their welfare and protection (Animal Welfare Act, 1999; The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960). Legal personhood for specific nonhuman species has been argued in courts; for example, the Nonhuman Rights Project seeks to endow great apes with legal rights equivalent to those of a person, allowing for their protection against captivity and exploitation (Nonhuman Rights Project, 2021). These movements signify a transformative understanding of rights, which transcends anthropocentrism and acknowledges the interconnectedness of all living beings.

Furthermore, ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism argue that the capacity to suffer should be the basis for the allocation of rights and the consideration of interests (Bentham, 1789). This perspective provides a strong argument for including nonhuman animals in discussions of rights. Considering that nonhuman animals are capable of experiencing pain, fear, and joy, there is a moral imperative to extend certain legal protections to them. Such an inclusion does not mean granting the same rights as humans, but rather recognizing their unique needs and suffering within a legal context tailored to their species.

Critics of extending human rights to nonhuman animals often argue that it dilutes the concept of human rights and the moral foundations of a society built on human dignity. However, this standpoint fails to recognize that the expansion of rights often leads to a more enriched ethical landscape, wherein all beings capable of suffering are acknowledged and respected. Broadening our conception of rights to include nonhuman animals fosters a more compassionate worldview and aligns with the growing recognition of environmental and animal welfare issues worldwide.

Our relationship with nonhuman animals is not merely one of dominion; it is increasingly becoming a relationship of partnership and respect. By granting enhanced legal status to nonhuman animals, society can advance towards a more equitable and humane legal framework that reflects our evolving understanding of consciousness and moral consideration. Advocating for rights for nonhuman animals instigates a critical examination of the ethical implications of our choices and encourages deeper reflections about coexistence with other sentient beings.

In conclusion, expanding the definition of rights to include nonhuman animals, especially those that exhibit significant cognitive capabilities, provides an opportunity to challenge long-standing paradigms of human superiority. It aligns with contemporary ethical thinking and the legal recognition of animal welfare, paving the way for a more inclusive approach to rights that acknowledges the moral status of all sentient beings. Therefore, it is crucial to consider an enhanced legal status for nonhuman animals, advocating for their rights as a means to promote respect, compassion, and justice within our societies.

References

  • Animal Welfare Act, 1999, New Zealand.
  • Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Gallup, G. G. (1970). Chimpanzees: Self-Recognition. Science, 167(3914), 86-87.
  • Nonhuman Rights Project. (2021). Advancing the Rights of Nonhuman Animals. Retrieved from http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org
  • The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, India.
  • Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. New York: HarperCollins.
  • Francione, G. L. (1996). Animals, Property, and the Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Pluhar, E. B. (1995). Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Birch, J. (2017). The Ethical Treatment of Animals and Rights. Ethics and the Environment, 22(1), 27-42.

Related Assignments