Animals and Ethics

Navigation menu

Sweet potatoes originated in the Americas and are now widely grown also in tropical Africa and Asia, usually from stem cuttings. Here too, the skill shortage spans a wide spectrum of industries and types of jobs. Yet, Plato seems to take it on faith that, if there is knowledge to be had, there must be these unchanging, eternal beings. Fat-soluble vitamins are soluble in fats and fat solvents. That is, advances in science and technology and improvements in social organization, both characteristic of the mental stage, dramatically increased the carrying capacity of the earth and human civilization. Thus food composition tables, estimates of nutrient requirements or dietary allowances and food balance sheets are tools used in different ways and for different purposes by persons wishing to assess the nutritional situation of groups of persons or of nations. Women spoke of the many roles they played as wives and of the importance of the non-procreative sexual bond to marriage.

An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.

Human Rights of Vulnerable Sections

My chronic fatigue and brain fog has gotten so bad that I feel like a vegetable. Jeff McCoombs mentions that if one starves candida too much, that it will go elsewhere looking for food. In other words, it will leave the gut and become systemic. Hi, It make sense, I agree, but do you have any research about how the candida might become worst with this diets to much low carbs like cetogenic.

Die offs are common with such diets and can last between a few days and a few weeks. You feel full of cravings and foggy and weak. This is normal and part of the process. You might be interested in this information.

When the candida begins dying off, they increase their production of toxins causing an increase in the symptoms of the person. Many people who start a regiment to kill candida end-up quiting because the herxheimer reaction is so unpleasant. Activated charcoal will absorb the toxins from your bloodstream, decreasing your symptoms. The brain fog, etc. Charcoal can help, but anti-ammonia compounds like ornithine might be worth looking into. Could this have something to do with some sort of overgrowth?

Is that an indication that I might have candida? Do you mean you would modify the fodmap diet so you get your carbs from low sugar things like raspberries and strawberries, but avoid the carbs in grain alternatives?

Biotin isnt an antifungal.. My candida was completly under control and I decided to take 10mg of biotin… dude it came back full force and now more resistant to my anti-fungals, none is working! Biotin has been shown in studies back in to prevent the conversion of the yeast form of candida, to the hyphal or mycelial form.

Sorry to hear that about the biotin! I was just going to start taking some today so now I will do some thorough research on it. Yes i would like to know about the consumption of raw honey in small amounts and the benotite cleanse worth doing?

Glenn Atkisskon — I wish I read your post months ago! I love how you posted the articles — people need to be educated about the suppression of these natural healers. They are cheap and effective! I think you might be talking about mold, referring to water logged building. I thought I had candida overgrowth but it might be fungal from living 6 months with Stachyburys mold. What has worked for you.

Thank you very much. My son is not ok. My daughter is five and has had chronic constipation since birth. She also has some high strung outbursts and is overly sensitive to things. My seven year old son has become a mess despite my constant advocation to pediatric doctors, neurologists, occupation therapists. When he was born I breast fed. I need to know 1. What to test myself and my kids for in this realm of gluten free,candida free or limiting life.

What deficiencies and excess minerals and fungi, wheats ect am I looking for? I live in the Austin Tx area. I need any info that can help me, please. Research MSM best brand Doctors best My family was exposed to mold and this supplement along with many othet vitamins including selenium has helped us tremendously.

We became Chemical Sensitive and had chronic fatigue, digestive issues, muscle paint, depression, candida overgrowth these are only some of our issues. MSM the miracle supplement to detoxify it saved my life and slowly getting my life back.

My functional GI Dr put me on Rifaximin and then Nystatin and all it did was cause bloat, joint pain, weight gain and worsening of my food intolerances. I cannot handle eating even my normal AIP diet. It is very frustrating. I think sometimes it is not enough to diet and take antifungals. We have to be sure were are eliminating toxins along the way. HI i can help you with that as I specialize in mthfr, methylation, nutrigenomics, and digestive health issues. No nasty Rifaximin and Nystatin!!

My name is bob I believe I have either a fungal or yeast problem for years. I live in no I cannot find a legitimate dr. To evaluate and treat. My doctors are nice but are traditional and I get know where. Can you help me get to someone that can actually help??

Testing evaluate and treat. We cannot find a good doctor to help and accounts are drained with all the better eating habits and supplements! I see an incredibly wonderful Doctor here in Viera, Florida and she has an office in Chicago, Illinois also. She flies back and forth. Her name is Dr. She is very experienced with the Candida problems, leaky gut Syndrom and Its realationship to autism.

She is a physchiatrist but knows all about the Candida issues. I have tried everything available from prescription antifungals to natural ones and eating organic low carb and taking all the supplements that are suppose to help.

But, I found out about undecylenic acid by myself and I think it is the one that will finally help me with this Candida problem and leaky gut.

If this undecylenic acid will truly do this, my gut lining will become available to be populated with healthy bacteria and hopefully I can feel like a normal person for the first time since I was From years old, I took antibiotics at least every months for one thing or another. Upper respiratory, sinusitis, toothache, throat, conjunctivitis, urinary tract, diverticulitis, bladder, and just for precaution if I got a cut on my foot.

These antibiotics destroyed my good gut bacteria and the yeast took over the lining of my intestinal tract. Brain fog is better too. I eat all organic only and nothing ready made. Now I have interstitial systitis because the oxalates have gathered in my bladder and they are like tiny razor blades go look them up.

I hope all this helps some of you out there. It took me a year of researching to figure all this out and what worked best for me. Many different types of antibiotics — not just Flagyl — kill off oxalate-degrading bacteria.

I took Flagyl in June, 7 day course. And, I have been going through hell. I am a very healthy person, 31 and very active. Can you help me with more info, please?

I think I have some issues from this still, and I get very depressed because I have no idea what kind of doctor can help me. I have no health insurance, so I cant bounce around doctors much. Could we exchange emails? Hi, Can you provide more info on the studies that show ketones feed candida? Also can you reccomend a specific protocol or cleanse that really works?

I have recently been diagnosed with a candida overgrowth as well as dysbiosis and different bad pathogens. Matt, hopefully you get notifications of replies to your post. Check out my post above yours.. Maybe this info will help. My wife seems to be having a recurrence of Valley Fever symptoms and I was wondering if these same diet based approaches could be applied to help her?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Nice Chris, i suffered from this before and found a women in my country that cures from this which did not work. Something similar to your diet helped me a lot. Then I came across a few online posts by the candida experts group that they were all about natural healing, listen to your body, and not using anti fungals supplements or drugs to kill the yeast, but help the body to naturally restore the balance and to my surprise they even allowed fruits on their diet!

I got better in a matter of days and after 4 weeks I had no overgrowth!!! Really great post, and I have read a lot of the other stuff you guys post and I am very impressed. I live in Norway travel a lot to the UK. I suspect I may have a fungal overgrowth, but as you say its difficult to know without testing. We have a totally different health care system over here in Europe. If I want to get tested for the types of things you are recommending over here in Europe do you guys have any suggestions about what tests I should ask for?

Do you know if these types of tests are available over here? Generally doctors over here have no appreciation for the concept that diet can be linked to autoimmune and skin conditions etc….

Chris or anybody who might know , the product GI Synergy http: I have just bought this from functional nutrition, they also have a website but you can contact them via phone. After a long battle with yeast infection and candida for so many years, I finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I got a stool test back, it said I have a high amount of S. Please can you write a list of food examples for both as a guide…. I have exactly what you need…this one is gold http: This series of articles on the different approaches to candida diets contains some very useful information — http: McCombs approach waits until Week 7 before introducing probiotics. He cites that fungal candida inhibits recolonization of Lactobacillus bacteria, and might even support the wrong immune response.

Correcting fungal imbalances first helps to create a better environment for supporting growth of beneficial bacteria. Using medications has been shown to be negative for several reasons — toxicity, development of anti fungal resistant strains, immunosuppression, etc.

A recent study from University of Toronto showed that when you kill fungal candida, you create a response that then causes death of immune cells, so further immunosuppression — http: The yeast form should be there. You say if you kill fungal forms of candida, that creates further immunosuppression. How would you treat parasites? Any specific herbs or anything? I raised some chickens and in the process contracted some.

I tried many things and Humaworm was the only thing that got rid of them. I have no idea even where to start. I am very symptomatic. My endo Dr just found a small benign mass on my adrenal. My DHT levels are very high and testosterone very high. I never feel well and am losing my hair. But I need help. After searching for 11 years to find a doctor who actually knows more about the gut than I do, I have yet to find one in New Jersey. No one can tell me why I have constant body aches that get worse when I eat any type of sugar, yeast, vinegar, cheese or starch.

No one can tell me why I get bad breath or a sore on my tongue when I eat almost any kind of fruit except white grapefruit, Jicama, and very green Granny Smith apples , plus any type of bread, or cheese or lunchmeat or anything processed. Can I just say Amen!!!!?? Have you done the organic acids test? I am thinking about it and curious if anyone has had significant findings with it. Cheryl I am right there with you.

Trying just about everything and nothing seems to help. I have every crazy symptom out there. I need help and no one seems to know how to help. Seven years and 12 docs for me. I finally came to the conclusion that unless the doc learned about this in med school..

They rely almost entirely on what they were taught in school. Like it is gospel. This allows me to set my expectations really low from the get go. This made my day! I thought I was the only one. My son has the same issue. I am trying to repopulate his gut with healthy bacteria feed the good suppress candida. Hoping the healthy bacteria will retrain the immune system. I had read this a while ago. I found it on this website: Metabolism of sulfur containing amino acids also results in the production of sulfite, but the enzyme sulfite oxidase, present in tissue, detoxifies sulfites by oxidizing them into sulfates.

I looked up Sulfur containing amino acids and found Methionine, cysteine, homocysteine, and taurine are the 4 common. These include the amino acids taurine, methionine, homocysteine and cysteine. They are among the most important of the amino acids, for which reason I include them here. Their main purpose is to help with the flexibility of connective tissue, and they are also absolutely essential for detoxification in the liver and elsewhere.

They are found naturally in a wide range of foods, notably garlic, onions, scallions, green onions, meats, eggs, some well-cooked beans and some seeds such as sesame.

I thought I had read about candida not liking some of these things. Well, I had a faint memory from decades ago that made me imprint on my brain to always say I am allergic to sulf- or sulph- drugs or medications. If you have Candida — does someone know if you should or should not use Celebrex for a separate pain causing condition whiplash cervical radiculopathy —?

If you have trace amounts of ketones while doing a SCD diet for candida, does that mean you are in ketosis? I had trace amounts in my urine and wondering if I am too low carb? Probably a stupid question, but should one wait until the overgrowth has cleared to start the Prescript Assist? Shortages of both these minerals contribute to many diseased conditions, candida overgrowth being only one. You may find that proper mineral intake will cure a lot of problems that plague modern man.

Most people are going to find they are short on several minerals, and iodine and boron are probably going to be 2 of these. Both boron and iodine have had strong support of the medical profession in years past.

Unfortunately, even alternative doctors are continuing to ignore the value of these and other minerals in sustaining vibrant human health. Both iodine and boron are hormone precursors, so can be very problematic if overdosed, as is commonly done in some alt med circles. The very high amounts of iodine such as mg taken in some alt med circles can be overstimulating or suppressive to the thyroid, or may have symptoms of both, creating confusion and case aggravation.

The critical distinctions here are: Boron is a testosterone and downstream estrogen precursor. A small amount of boron such as mg goes a long way in this connection. Some of that testosterone is going to be converted to estrogen, usually undesirable by most men.

In my clinical experience, this is certainly not the case in all HT cases — only a select few. By a careful assessment of both their auto antibodies as well as TSH and rT3, these needless aggravations can be almost totally avoided.

Salivary and urinary iodine determination is clever, and you you will also find the around mcg of selnomethionine given daily can have a most positive effect on lowering anttibodies as long as they go gluten free and their diet has been positively attended to.

I think selenium with selenomethionine being one form of that is one of those substances where a small amount is stimulating and a high amount is suppressive. The point at which a stimulating amount flips into a suppressive amount to be very individual and dependent on various. I suspect that may be the mechanism behind giving selenium to lower [suppress] Hashi: I speculate that some selenium aggravation can be the result of how dead the thyroid is before either meds or thyroid-related supplements are begun.

If the thyroid is not too dead yet from Hashi antibodies attacking it over time, the thyroid does contribute a small but significant percentage of T3, stimulated by selenium as a precursor to T3, and so can foster a hyper state shown by testing even if the person was hypo before.

And once a person has a sufficient level of Hashi antibodies, the antibody numbers may come down with meds or high selenium, but the antibodies are always there lurking in the woodwork ready to come out and go into action if the right conditions present, part of the body doing its job to defend you. Eric, I totally agree with you on thyroid and adrenals — I view these as nearly always intertwined in some way.

Patients need to realize that adrenal fatigue is a controversial subject even within complementary med patients new to complementary med almost never have the perspective to make this critical distinction. I would also like to see more information on the gut restoration process. Specific steps to take after you have gone through the killing phase or the less aggressive route with antimicrobials. Typically I find these are the patiets with low cortisol levels saliva testing. These are typically the doctor-hopping patients who spend hours on CureZone or forums and who rarely get well.

Comprehensive stool test was negative. But thank goodness the integrative Doc I saw new to check blood antibodies too! That turned out to be off the charts. Thank you Chris and Steve! My gut always seems better when I am zero sugar but then my energy plummets!

I add carbs back in and then my gut feels awful and I gain weight. I am not sure if ferments are helpful or not for candida? I have read such conflicting advice on that. Most tests I have had point to candida. Not sure what to do at this point. I was wondering if you are any better now? I have the same issues as you.. I agree with the rebalancing approach to candida since about 20 years now, and agree that long-term anti-fungal use is not a good idea.

One of the biggest setups for candida, in addition to antibiotic use without restoring friendly bacteria and too much sugar in the diet, is a non-optimized thyroid. I have finally started to explore this issue and cannot believe the ignorance amongst allopaths including my own PCP who I like a lot.

My PCP said it is of no concern. Now I am learning this is certainly untrue. I understand that the antibodies may diagnose it, but the antibodies can persist after the infection clears.

What if you have been tested for sibo…it was negative.. Genova Stool testing did not show fungal infection or parasites???? Jen, have you looked into histamine intolerance? This can cause significant bloating, fatigue etc lowhistaminechef. I will look into it…I am thinking low oxalate as well…. This is one of the best articles I have read on this subject.

I have been dealing with candida overgrowth for the past few years. I thought I had it under control two years ago but last year I had a very bad year. My eczema has been out of control. I got test done and my gut is all messed up with yeast and gut dysbiosis. I am going to show this article to me doctor as she was going to put me on some fungal medications. I have been low — moderate carb too all of last year, so maybe this is why it came back so strong.

How on earth to I actually go about getting a colony of these to reside in my gut again? Anyhow, lactobacilli are transient species so you can populate it in your gut but eating the bacteria and the foods on which it feeds. Gut bacteria can change overnight in response to change in diet. Hi Chris, Can you tell us more about which metabolites are raised in the Organic Acid tests?

Mainly arabinose and other organic acids like citramalic, tartaric, other glycolytic metabolites. The lab report often tells that this is a yeast marker, and potentially which species they are. What a vicious cycle. We are all infected! Normally your yeast would love to keep you free of pathogens and healthy, but when it thinks you are about to die, it will gladly help speed that process, too!

All you do is make the yeast mad. It shape-shifts and hides. Unless you repair your immune system, you will never win against yeast. In vivo imaging of disseminated murine Candida albicans infection reveals unexpected host sites of fungal persistence during antifungal therapy. In this study, they created a bioluminescent Candida, and infected mice.

Then they tried killing the Candida with antifungals. The treatment of infected mice with caspofungin and fluconazole significantly improved the clinical outcome and clearance of C. Fungi were secreted with bile and detected in the faeces, implicating the gall bladder as a reservoir for colonization by C. Bile extracts significantly decreased the susceptibility of C. Likewise, we could easily program robots to engage in pain-behavior, but we would not conclude that they feel pain.

The similarity of animal and human physical structures is inconclusive because we have no idea how, or even if, the physical structure of human beings gives rise to experiences in the first place. Evolutionary considerations are not conclusive either, because it is only pain behavior, and not the experience of pain itself, that would be advantageous in the struggle for survival.

Harrison concludes that since the strongest argument for the claim that animals are conscious fails, we should not believe that they are conscious. Peter Carruthers has suggested that there is another reason to doubt that animals are conscious Carruthers, , Carruthers begins by noting that not all human experiences are conscious experiences.

For example, I may be thinking of an upcoming conference while driving and not ever consciously "see" the truck in the road that I swerve to avoid. Likewise, patients that suffer from "blindsight" in part of their visual field have no conscious experience of seeing anything in that part of the field. However, there must be some kind of experience in both of these cases since I did swerve to avoid the truck, and must have "seen" it, and because blindsight patients can catch objects that are thrown at them in the blindsighted area with a relatively high frequency.

Carruthers then notes that the difference between conscious and non-conscious experiences is that conscious experiences are available to higher-order thoughts while non-conscious experiences are not. A higher-order thought is a thought that can take as its object another thought. He thus concludes that in order to have conscious experiences one must be able to have higher-order thoughts. However, we have no reason to believe that animals have higher-order thoughts, and thus no reason to believe that they are conscious.

Contractualist Theories of morality construe morality to be the set of rules that rational individuals would choose under certain specified conditions to govern their behavior in society. In that work, Rawls argues for a conception of justice as fairness. Arguing against Utilitarian theories of justice, Rawls believes that the best conception of a just society is one in which the rules governing that society are rules that would be chosen by individuals from behind a veil of ignorance.

The veil of ignorance is a hypothetical situation in which individuals do not know any particular details about themselves, such as their sex, age, race, intelligence, abilities, etc.

However, these individuals do know general facts about human society, such as facts about psychology, economics, human motivation, etc. Rawls has his imagined contractors be largely self-interested; each person's goal is to select the rules that will benefit them the most. Since they do not know who exactly they are, they will not choose rules that benefit any one individual, or segment of society, over another since they may find themselves to be in the harmed group. Instead, they will choose rules that protect, first and foremost, rational, autonomous individuals.

Although Rawls argues for this conception as a conception of justice, others have tried to extend it to cover all of morality. Carruthers notes that if we do so extend Rawls's conception, animals will have no direct moral standing. Since the contractors are self-interested, but do not know who they are, they will accept rules that protect rational individuals. However, the contractors know enough about themselves to know that they are not animals.

They will not adopt rules that give special protection to animals, therefore, since this would not further their self-interest. The result is that rational human beings will be directly protected, while animals will not. If indirect theories are correct, then we are not required to take the interests of animals to be directly relevant to the assessment of our actions when we are deciding how to act.

This does not mean, however, that we are not required to consider how our actions will affect animals at all. Just because something is not directly morally considerable does not imply that we can do whatever we want to it. For example, there are two straightforward ways in which restrictions regarding the proper treatment of animals can come into existence. Consider the duties we have towards private property. I cannot destroy your car if I desire to do so because it is your property, and by harming it I will thereby harm you.

Also, I cannot go to the town square and destroy an old tree for fun since this may upset many people that care for the tree. Likewise, duties with regard to animals can exist for these reasons. I cannot harm your pets because they belong to you, and by harming them I will thereby harm you. I also cannot harm animals in public simply for fun since doing so will upset many people, and I have a duty to not cause people undue distress. These are two straightforward ways in which indirect theories will generate duties with regard to animals.

There are two other ways that even stronger restrictions regarding the proper treatment of animals might be generated from indirect theories. First, both Immanuel Kant and Peter Carruthers argue that there can be more extensive indirect duties to animals. These duties extend not simply to the duty to refrain from harming the property of others and the duty to not offend animal lovers. Rather, we also have a duty to refrain from being cruel to them.

Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity. Animal nature has analogies to human nature, and by doing our duties to animals in respect of manifestations of human nature, we indirectly do our duty to humanity…. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals Regan and Singer, Such acts [as torturing a cat for fun] are wrong because they are cruel.

They betray an indifference to suffering that may manifest itself…with that person's dealings with other rational agents. So although the action may not infringe any rights…it remains wrong independently of its effect on any animal lover Carruthers, So although we need not consider how our actions affect animals themselves, we do need to consider how our treatment of animals will affect our treatment of other human beings. If being cruel to an animal will make us more likely to be cruel to other human beings, we ought not be cruel to animals; if being grateful to animal will help us in being grateful to human beings then we ought to be grateful to animals.

Second, there may be an argument for vegetarianism that does not rely on considerations of the welfare of animals at all. Consider that for every pound of protein that we get from an animal source, we must feed the animals, on average, twenty-three pounds of vegetable protein.

Many people on the planet today are dying of easily treatable diseases largely due to a diet that is below starvation levels. If it is possible to demonstrate that we have a duty to help alleviate the suffering of these human beings, then one possible way of achieving this duty is by refraining from eating meat.

The vegetable protein that is used to feed the animals that wealthy countries eat could instead be used to feed the human beings that live in such deplorable conditions. Of course, not all indirect theorists accept these results. However, the point to be stressed here is that even granting that animals have no direct moral status, we may have possibly demanding duties regarding their treatment. Two common arguments against indirect theories have seemed compelling to many people.

The first argument is The Argument from Marginal Cases; the second is an argument against the Kantian account of indirect duties to animals. The Argument from Marginal Cases is an argument that attempts to demonstrate that if animals do not have direct moral status, then neither do such human beings as infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, and other such "marginal cases" of humanity. Since we believe that these sorts of human beings do have direct moral status, there must be something wrong with any theory that claims they do not.

More formally, the argument is structured as follows:. The defense of premise 1 usually goes something like this.

If being rational or autonomous, or able to speak is what permits us to deny direct moral status to animals, then we can likewise deny that status to any human that is not rational or autonomous, able to speak, etc. This line of reasoning works for almost every property that has been thought to warrant our denying direct moral status to animals.

Since the marginal cases are beings whose abilities are equal to, if not less than, the abilities of animals, any reason to keep animals out of the class of beings with direct moral status will keep the marginal cases out as well. There is one property that is immune to this line of argument, namely, the property of being human. However, if someone does so they must give up the claim that human beings are above animals due to the fact that human beings are more intelligent or rational than animals.

It must be claimed instead that being human is, in itself, a morally relevant property. Few in recent times are willing to make that kind of a claim. Another way to escape this line of argument is to deny the second premise Cf.

Frey, ; Francis and Norman, This may be done in a series of steps. First, it may be noted that there are very few human beings that are truly marginal. For example, infants, although not currently rational, have the potential to become rational.

Perhaps they should not be counted as marginal for that reason. Likewise, the senile may have a direct moral status due to the desires they had when they were younger and rational.

Once the actual number of marginal cases is appreciated, it is then claimed that it is not counter-intuitive to conclude that the remaining individuals do not have a direct moral status after all. Once again, however, few are willing to accept that conclusion. The fact that a severely cognitively disabled infant can feel pain seems to most to be a reason to refrain from harming the infant. Another argument against indirect theories begins with the intuition that there are some things that simply cannot be done to animals.

For example, I am not permitted to torture my own cat for fun, even if no one else finds out about it. This intuition is one that any acceptable moral theory must be able to accommodate. The argument against indirect theories is that they cannot accommodate this intuition in a satisfying way.

Both Kant and Carruthers agree that my torturing my own cat for fun would be wrong. However, they believe it is wrong not because of the harm to the cat, but rather because of the effect this act will have on me.

Many people have found this to be a very unsatisfying account of the duty. If it is, in itself, perfectly all right to do anything at all to animals for any reason whatsoever, then provided a person realizes the clear line between animals and persons and keeps it in mind as he acts, why should killing animals brutalize him and make him more likely to harm or kill persons Nozick, In other words, unless it is wrong in itself to harm the animal, it is hard to see why such an act would lead people to do other acts that are likewise wrong.

If the indirect theorist does not have a better explanation for why it is wrong to torture a cat for fun, and as long as we firmly believe such actions are wrong, then we will be forced to admit that indirect theories are not acceptable.

Indirect theorists can, and have, responded to this line of argument in three ways. First, they could reject the claim that the indirect theorist's explanation of the duty is unsatisfactory.

Second, they could offer an alternative explanation for why such actions as torturing a cat are wrong. Third, they could reject the claim that those sorts of acts are necessarily wrong. Most people accept an account of the proper moral status of animals according to which the interests of animals count directly in the assessment of actions that affect them, but do not count for as much as the interests of human beings.

Their defense requires two parts: The argument in support of the claim that animals have direct moral status is rather simple. It goes as follows:. Examples of positively valenced episodes of awareness are pleasure, joy, elation, and contentment. Examples of negatively valenced episodes of awareness are pain, suffering, depression, and anxiety.

In support of premise 1 , many argue that pain and pleasure are directly morally relevant, and that there is no reason to discount completely the pleasure or pain of any being.

The argument from analogy is often used in support of premise 2 see the discussion of this argument in section I, part C above. The argument from analogy is also used in answering the difficult question of exactly which animals are sentient.

The general idea is that the justification for attributing sentience to a being grows stronger the more analogous it is to human beings. People also commonly use the flaws of indirect theories as a reason to support the claim that animals have direct moral status.

Those that believe both that the marginal cases have direct moral status and that indirect theories cannot answer the challenge of the Argument from Marginal Cases are led to support direct theories; those that believe both that such actions as the torture of one's own cat for fun are wrong and that indirect theories cannot explain why they are wrong are also led to direct theories.

The usual manner of justifying the claim that animals are not equal to human beings is to point out that only humans have some property, and then argue that that property is what confers a full and equal moral status to human beings.

Some philosophers have used the following claims on this strategy: On one common understanding of rights, only human beings have rights. On this conception of rights, if a being has a right then others have a duty to refrain from infringing that right; rights entail duties. An individual that has a right to something must be able to claim that thing for himself, where this entails being able to represent himself in his pursuit of the thing as a being that is legitimately pursuing the furtherance of his interests Cf.

Since animals are not capable of representing themselves in this way, they cannot have rights. However, lacking rights does not entail lacking direct moral status; although rights entail duties it does not follow that duties entail rights. So although animals may have no rights, we may still have duties to them. The significance of having a right, however, is that rights act as "trumps" against the pursuit of utility. In other words, if an individual has a right to something, we are not permitted to infringe on that right simply because doing so will have better overall results.

Our duties to those without rights can be trumped by considerations of the overall good. Although I have a duty to refrain from destroying your property, that duty can be trumped if I must destroy the property in order to save a life.

Likewise, I am not permitted to harm animals without good reason; however, if greater overall results will come about from such harm, then it is justified to harm animals.

This sort of reasoning has been used to justify such practices as experimentation that uses animals, raising animals for food, and using animals for our entertainment in such places as rodeos and zoos. There are two points of contention with the above account of rights. First, it has been claimed that if human beings have rights, then animals will likewise have rights. For example, Joel Feinberg has argued that all is required in order for a being to have a right is that the being be capable of being represented as legitimately pursuing the furtherance of its interests Feinberg, The claim that the being must be able to represent itself is too strong, thinks Feinberg, for such a requirement will exclude infants, the senile, and other marginal cases from the class of beings with rights.

In other words, Feinberg invokes yet another instance of the Argument from Marginal Cases in order to support his position. Second, it has been claimed that the very idea of rights needs to be jettisoned. There are two reasons for this. First, philosophers such as R. Frey have questioned the legitimacy of the very idea of rights, echoing Bentham's famous claim that rights are "nonsense on stilts" Frey, Second, philosophers have argued that whether or not a being will have rights will depend essentially on whether or not it has some other lower-order property.

For example, on the above conception of rights, whether a being will have a right or not will depend on whether it is able to represent itself as a being that is legitimately pursuing the furtherance of its interests. If that is what grounds rights, then what is needed is a discussion of the moral importance of that ability, along with a defense of the claim that it is an ability that animals lack.

More generally, it has been argued that if we wish to deny animals rights and claim that only human beings have them, then we must focus not so much on rights, but rather on what grounds them. For this reason, much of the recent literature concerning animals and ethics focuses not so much on rights, but rather on whether or not animals have certain other properties, and whether the possession of those properties is a necessary condition for equal consideration Cf. Some people argue that only rational, autonomous, and self-conscious beings deserve full and equal moral status; since only human beings are rational, autonomous, and self-conscious, it follows that only human beings deserve full and equal moral status.

Once again, it is not claimed that we can do whatever we like to animals; rather, the fact that animals are sentient gives us reason to avoid causing them unnecessary pain and suffering. However, when the interests of animals and human beings conflict we are required to give greater weight to the interests of human beings.

This also has been used to justify such practices as experimentation on animals, raising animals for food, and using animals in such places as zoos and rodeos.

The attributes of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness confer a full and equal moral status to those that possess them because these beings are the only ones capable of attaining certain values and goods; these values and goods are of a kind that outweigh the kinds of values and goods that non-rational, non-autonomous, and non-self-conscious beings are capable of attaining.

For example, in order to achieve the kind of dignity and self-respect that human beings have, a being must be able to conceive of itself as one among many, and must be able to choose his actions rather than be led by blind instinct Cf.

Francis and Norman, ; Steinbock, Furthermore, the values of appreciating art, literature, and the goods that come with deep personal relationships all require one to be rational, autonomous, and self-conscious.

These values, and others like them, are the highest values to us; they are what make our lives worth living. As John Stuart Mill wrote, "Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures" Mill, We find the lives of beings that can experience these goods to be more valuable, and hence deserving of more protection, than the lives of beings that cannot. Another reason for giving stronger preference to the interests of human beings is that only human beings can act morally.

This is considered to be important because beings that can act morally are required to sacrifice their interests for the sake of others. It follows that those that do sacrifice their good for the sake of others are owed greater concern from those that benefit from such sacrifices. Since animals cannot act morally, they will not sacrifice their own good for the sake of others, but will rather pursue their good even at the expense of others.

That is why human beings should give the interests of other human beings greater weight than they do the interests of animals. Finally, some claim that membership in the moral community is necessary for full and equal moral status. The moral community is not defined in terms of the intrinsic properties that beings have, but is defined rather in terms of the important social relations that exist between beings.

For example, human beings can communicate with each other in meaningful ways, can engage in economic, political, and familial relationships with each other, and can also develop deep personal relationships with each other.

These kinds of relationships require the members of such relationships to extend greater concern to other members of these relationships than they do to others in order for the relationships to continue.

Since these relationships are what constitute our lives and the value contained in them, we are required to give greater weight to the interests of human beings than we do to animals.

The final theories to discuss are the moral equality theories. On these theories, not only do animals have direct moral status, but they also have the same moral status as human beings.

According to theorists of this kind, there can be no legitimate reason to place human beings and animals in different moral categories, and so whatever grounds our duties to human beings will likewise ground duties to animals. Peter Singer has been very influential in the debate concerning animals and ethics. Singer attacks the views of those who wish to give the interests of animals less weight than the interests of human beings.

He argues that if we attempt to extend such unequal consideration to the interests of animals, we will be forced to give unequal consideration to the interests of different human beings. However, doing this goes against the intuitively plausible and commonly accepted claim that all human beings are equal. Singer concludes that we must instead extend a principle of equal consideration of interests to animals as well. Singer describes that principle as follows:.

The essence of the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests is that we give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions Singer, Singer defends this principle with two arguments.

Singer's version of the Argument from Marginal Cases is slightly different from the version listed above.

It runs as follows:. Singer does not defend his first premise, but does not need to; the proponents of the view that all and only humans deserve a full and equal moral status rely on it themselves see the discussion of Direct but Unequal Theories above. In support of the second premise, Singer asks us to consider exactly what properties only humans have that can ground such a strong moral status.

Certain properties, such as being human, having human DNA, or walking upright do not seem to be the kind of properties that can ground this kind of status. For example, if we were to encounter alien life forms that did not have human DNA, but lived lives much like our own, we would not be justified in according these beings a weaker moral status simply because they were not human.

However, there are some properties which only human beings have which have seemed to many to be able to ground a full and equal moral status; for example, being rational, autonomous, or able to act morally have all been used to justify giving a stronger status to human beings than we do to animals. The problem with such a suggestion is that not all human beings have these properties.

So if this is what grounds a full and equal moral status, it follows that not all human beings are equal after all. If we try to ensure that we choose a property that all human beings do have that will be sufficient to ground a full and equal moral status, we seemed to be pushed towards choosing something such as being sentient, or being capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.

Since the marginal cases have this property, they would be granted a full and equal moral status on this suggestion. However, if we choose a property of this kind, animals will likewise have a full and equal moral status since they too are sentient. The attempt to grant all and only human beings a full and equal moral status does not work according to Singer.

We must either conclude that not all human beings are equal, or we must conclude that not only human beings are equal. Singer suggests that the first option is too counter-intuitive to be acceptable; so we are forced to conclude that all animals are equal, human or otherwise. Another argument Singer employs to refute the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status focuses on the supposed moral relevance of such properties as rationality, autonomy, the ability to act morally, etc.

Singer argues that if we were to rely on these sorts of properties as the basis of determining moral status, then we would justify a kind of discrimination against certain human beings that is structurally analogous to such practices as racism and sexism.

For example, the racist believes that all members of his race are more intelligent and rational than all of the members of other races, and thus assigns a greater moral status to the members of his race than he does do the members of other races. However, the racist is wrong in this factual judgment; it is not true that all members of any one race are smarter than all members of any other. Notice, however, that the mistake the racist is making is merely a factual mistake.

His moral principle that assigns moral status on the basis of intelligence or rationality is not what has led him astray. Rather, it is simply his assessment of how intelligence or rationality is distributed among human beings that is mistaken. If that were all that is wrong with racism and sexism, then a moral theory according to which we give extra consideration to the very smart and rational would be justified.

In other words, we would be justified in becoming, not racists, but sophisticated inegalitarians. However, the sophisticated inegalitarian is just as morally suspect as the racist is.

Therefore, it follows that the racist is not morally objectionable merely because of his views on how rationality and intelligence are distributed among human beings; rather he is morally objectionable because of the basis he uses to weigh the interests of different individuals.

How intelligent, rational, etc. Notice that in order for this argument to succeed, it must target properties that admit of degrees. If someone argued that the basis of human equality rested on the possession of a property that did not admit of degrees, it would not follow that some human beings have that property to a stronger degree than others, and the sophisticated inegalitarian would not be justified.

However, most of the properties that are used in order to support the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status are properties that do admit of degrees.