In the field of integrity and compliance conduct, the abuse of animals has sparked a significant debate among human beings all over the globe, but particularly in the United States, on what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior (Bullied, 2020). Furthermore, it is claimed that an ideal principle of justice can be established if it can be demonstrated that creatures are morally deficient to living beings in the sense that almost all human preferences are more substantial morally than in all animals’ best interest and that it can be demonstrated. As a result of historical breakthroughs in a wide range of research disciplines, a diverse range of viewpoints on the issue of animal care has arisen throughout time among various individuals, regions, and even generations. Certain organizations think that, since the main job of creatures is to provide food for humans, people have no ethical obligation to treat an animal in a way that is seen to be decent by the general public.
When handling animals, it is important to do what is right to avoid inflicting pain and suffering on them. Despite the fact that humans use animals to achieve their goals, it is important to do what is right to avoid inflicting pain and suffering on these animals (Shafer, 2009). Some individuals believe that humans owe it to animals to treat them humanely, as animals are living beings used for human benefit. There are Some ethicists believe that animals should be treated humanely, not only because they are essential to agriculture but also because they are a source of biological power that may be used in a variety of ways.
According to Chapter 17 in Ruff Shaffer’s Fundamentals of Ethics, while referring to a decent person, virtue ethicists would use the example of a good person to illustrate their point. As a result, this speaks to ethics, which is not just limited to ethical behavior when interacting with humans but is also applicable to all other components of our environment, such as animals (Shaffer, 2009). Therefore, we must treat animals with respect since they are other people’s property. We cannot claim to be ethical while ignoring the needs of animals that play an essential part in our society, as they are the property of other people. Also contributing to the debate over the unethical treatment of animals is Neuhaus and Parent (2019), who argue that modern techniques such as gene editing are beneficial to humanity in the long run because they aid in the development of characteristics in animals that humans desire. As a long-term solution for humanity, genetic engineering has the potential to be harmful to animals in the short term, as Neuhaus and Parent point out. This should motivate discussion of the ethical aspects of genetic engineering and its benefits to humans.
The virtue of moral complexity, as defined by Shaffer in chapter 17, is one of the virtues that makes it difficult to come to a decision on one portion of the virtues’ advice, which is one of the virtues that makes it difficult to decide on the virtue of moral complexity. Shaffer argues that there is no one approach to examining what is referred to as morality in any particular case (Shafer, 2009). A standard behavior or strategy for doing things that are judged morally upright also does not exist; rather, ethics and morals are comprised of a collection of items that, when put together, constitute ethics and morals that are seen as right or wrong in a specific scenario. The importance of concentrating on justice for both human and non-human animals, according to Cochrane and colleagues, is critical. They agree with Shaffer’s stance on the relevance of justice, which focuses on discriminating between right and wrong. Cochrane et al. (2018) advocate for the establishment of an animal legal system. Therefore, it is clear that establishing the content of an ethical decision is vital since ethics regulates all of our actions and activities, including the ethics of animal care. According to others, this is not true since it undervalues the moral relevance of animals’ motivation in avoiding pain.
References
Bullied, J. (2020). Better Societies for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Vegetarianism and the Utopian Tradition. In Ethical Futures and Global Science Fiction (pp. 49-73). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Cochrane, A., Garner, R., & O’Sullivan, S. (2018). Animal ethics and the political. Critical
Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 21(2), 261-277.
Neuhaus, C. P., & Parent, B. (2019). Gene Doping—in Animals? Ethical Issues at the Intersection of Animal Use, Gene Editing, and Sports Ethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 28(1), 26-39.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2009). The fundamentals of ethics.
0 Comments