UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

A PRESENTATION ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN ETHICS

(ANIMAL RIGHTS)

SUBMITTED BY GROUP 1 (U2020)

COURSE: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN ETHICS

COURSE CODE: PHIL. 400.1

COURSE LECTURER: PROF T. V. OGAN & DR. S. BIG-ALABO

DATE: FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025
NAMES MAT NUMBERS

DAVID GEORGE U2020/1830001

IGWE CLEMENTINA TREASURE U2020/1830002

MAURICE EMMANUEL FRANCIS U2020/1830003

MICHEAL GOLD ATOCHI U2020/1830004

NAWERI EDIRI U2020/1830005

NGOZI ESOMCHI AMANDA U2020/1830006

BOM-MANUEL RACHEL TAMUNOSIKI U2020/8300007

CHIKA GOODNESS CHIMA U2020/1830008

ALIGWO CHIDINMA FAVOUR U2020/1830009

SULEMAN YAHAYA YUSUF U2020/1830010

CHIMACHI VICTOR AMARACHI U2020/1830011

EZEMA UCHENNA CLEOPHAS U2020/1830012

ONAKPOSEGHA OVIE EXCEL U2020/1830014

AGWUCHUKWU ABIGAIL U2020/1830015

ABUBAKAR MERCY ONYEYIRICHI U2020/1830016

CRYPIAN-AMADI DIVINE EBUBECHI U2020/1830017

OKWE OLUCHI CYNTHIA U2020/1830018

EROVENO PRECIOUS U2020/1830019

KALAINGELE SOPHIA EBILADEI U2020/1830020

ALUKA PRECIOUS CHUKWU U2020/1830021

CHUKWU MIRACLE OLUEBUBE U2020/1830022

LEGBARA DESTINY KWAS U2020/1830023

KALU EMMANUEL U2020/1830024

UCHUNOR DAVID UGOCHUKWU U2020/1830025

WEBILOR BENITA CHINWE U2020/1830026

OBIORAH DIVINE CHIBUIKEM U2020/1830027

COLLINS PRECIOUS CHIKA U2020/1830028

MBAH GINIKA VICTORIA U2020/1830029

EZE PRINCE IKECHUKWU U2020/1830030

 Abstract

The idea of giving rights to animals has long been contentious but a
deeper look into the reasoning behind the philosophy reveals ideas that
aren’t all that radical. Animal rights advocates, attempt to distinguish
animals from inanimate objects, as they are so often considered by
exploitative industries and the law.
The animal rights movement strives to make the public aware of the fact
that animals are more sensitive, emotional, and intelligent than people
have previously believed. But first, it is important to understand what the
term “animal rights” really means.
Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient
animals have moral worth that is independent of their utility for humans,
and that their most basic interests such as avoiding suffering should be
afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.
Broadly speaking, and particularly in popular discourse, the term
“animal rights” is often used synonymously with “animal protection” or
“animal liberation”. More narrowly, “animal rights” refers to the idea
that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as
individual rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture that may not
be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.
 INTRODUCTION

Animal rights are moral principles grounded in the belief that non-
human animals deserve the ability to live as they wish, without being
subjected to the desires of human beings. At the core of animal rights is
autonomy, which is another way of saying choice. In many countries,
human rights are enshrined to protect certain freedoms, such as the right
to expression, right to freedom of movements, right to freedom from
torture, right to life and access to democracy. Of course, these choices
are constrained depending on social locations like race, class, and
gender, but generally speaking, human rights safeguard the basic tenets
of what makes human lives worth living. Animal rights aim to do
something similar, only for non-human animals.
In his book “Animal Liberation”, Peter Singer states that the basic
principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; but
rather it requires equal consideration. This is an important distinction
when talking about animal rights. People often ask if animals should
have rights, and quite simply, the answer is “Yes!” Animals surely
deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Jeremy
Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral
philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being’s rights, “The question
is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” In
that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital
characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The
capacity for suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity
for language or higher mathematics. All animals have the ability to
suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel
pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever
we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we
are morally obligated to take them into account. Animal rights come into
direct opposition with animal exploitation, which includes animals used
by humans for a variety of reasons, be it for food, as experimental
objects, or even pets. Animal rights can also be violated when it comes
to human destruction of animal habitats. This negatively impacts the
ability of animals to lead full lives of their choosing.

The Concept of Animal Rights

Animal Rights has two different meanings. One meaning refers to

specific law-based protections of non-human animals and hence to
animal rights activity in formulating fundamental legal protections of
animals, as well as monitoring adherence to these clear legal
requirements. The other meaning refers more vaguely to the moral rights
of animals. And advocates of this position argue for moral protections of
non-human animals along the same lines as the rights of humans (i.e.,
the rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture), but not necessarily
treating animals and humans in the same way for all purposes (see
Francione, 2000; Armstrong and Botzler, 2003). In essence, extending
rights to animals, means that animals have an inherent right to live
according to their species characteristics/requirements, free from harm,
abuse, and exploitation. In other words, non-human animals (hereafter
referred to simply as animals) have value in their own right completely
separate from their usefulness to humans.
The case for animal rights is usually derived from the case for human
rights, the case holds that adult mammals deserves rights that ought to be
protect.
•Human animals have rights
• There is no morally relevant difference between human animals and
adult mammals
•Therefore, adult mammals must have rights too. Human beings and
adult mammals have rights because they are both ‘subjects-of-a-life’.
This means that: They have similar levels of biological complexity, they
are conscious and aware that they exist, they know what is happening to
them, they prefer some things and dislike others, they make conscious
choices, they live in such a way as to give themselves the best quality of
life, they plan their lives to some extent, the quality and length of their
life matters to them. If a being is the “subject-of-a-life”, then it can be
said to have ‘inherent value’. All beings with inherent value are equally
valuable and entitled to the same rights. Their inherent value doesn’t
depend on how useful they are to the world, and it doesn’t diminish if
they are a burden to others.
Thus, adult mammals have rights in just the same way, for the same
reasons, and to the same extent that human beings do have.

History of Animal Rights

There are different Historical Views on Animal Rights; History is the

study of the past. It is the story and recordings of humanity through the
use of books, newspapers, documents, personal papers, records,
historical artifacts and oral interviews. Historians piece together, past
events to determine why and how things happened (answers.com).
Everything that exists today, including attitudes, social norms, morals
and values, has a link to the past. That link to the past may account for
humankind’s feelings on animal rights.
The relationship between human and non-human animals is a long and
varied story dating back to pre-historic times particularly the biblical
story. Throughout history, humankind and animal have been both
predator and prey. Humans learned early on how to use animals to their
advantage for food, clothing, shelter and currency. The alliance between
humans and non-human animals during these times has led to the dual
relationship, both companion and agricultural, that modern society now
shares with animals. It is important to discuss the bond between humans
and animals and to give some background on this relationship.
Understanding this bond may provide answers to the questions regarding
animal rights.
Animals have always had an important relationship with humans. Dating
back about 10,000 years, when Homo sapiens transitioned from being
hunter-gathers into more permanent communities, animals were
domesticated for food and clothing. It is here that the modern affiliation
with animals began. Early societies came to depend upon animals not
only for food and clothing, but also as a source of companionship. Some
animals such as the oxen were used for labor; other smaller animals such
as the dog became companions. In these pre-historic times the hierarchy
between humans and animals did not exist. Both lived side by side in
close proximity because humans felt they were closely related to the
animals. It was not until the Middle Ages that humankind’s view of
animals began to change.
During the Middle Ages, the church tried to separate humans and
animals by pointing out the many differences between the species. This
view did not last long, and in the 12Th century the Greeks and Romans
began to break down some of the boundaries established in earlier days.
This leads us to the:
1. Philosophical History of Animal rights.
• From philosophical history, we can etymologically trace the
place of animals in human morality from the Neo Platonian and
Pythagorean point of view. They believed that non- human
animals interests deserve respect because they believed in the
transmigration of the souls between human and animal bodies.
• The stoics however kicked against animal rights. They hold that
non-human animals are irrational and hence should be treated as
contemptible.
• Aristotle believes that animals are solely meant for satisfaction
of man’s need hence he rejected advocacy for animal rights.
• Descartes rejected animal rights because he believed that
animals are unconscious automata(machineries)
• Immanuel Kant recognized animals as conscious beings
however he rejected animal rights because to him, animals have
no moral duty and human beings do.
2. Cultural history of animal rights.
• Animal Rights can be traced to have originated from Asia and
ancient India. The Indians practiced “totemism” (the ideology
that animals were gods and were worshipped by the Indians as
their traditional practice and hence they detested the killing of
animals).
3. Medical history of animal rights. To a large extent it seems as
though the medical practitioners have totally rejected the advocacy
of animal rights because of the need for animals in
experimentations and lab tests and practices of vivisection.
However, Charles Darwin commented on animals in his evolution
theory by emphasizing the need for animal welfare because he
believed that humans evolved from animals and hence the need for
animals to be protected and accorded rights.
The various ideologies, led to the emergence of advocacy for
animal rights. In the 3rd centuries, Hermogenious wrote,
“Hominum cause omne jus costitum” which means that “all laws
were established for men’s sake”. Hence, he viewed men as legal
persons entitled to laws/ rights whereas animals are legal things
and not legal persons. Although his view was counted using the
case of Slavery where a legal thing (slave), when freed is being
granted freewill and liberty as a legal person.
In the late 18th to early 19th century, humanitarian reformers in
Britain and U.S campaigned on behalf of the weak and defenseless
by protesting against Child labor, treatment of animals, debtors and
prisoners, etc. this gave rise to William Wilberforce supporting a
bill to abolish bull and bear baiting, it was however defeated. In
1809, Baron Ersking introduced a bill to prohibit cruelty to
domestic animals. In 1821 a bill to prevent cruel and proper
treatment of cattle was introduced by Wilberforce Williams,
Richard Martin and Thomas Buxton. In 1822, Martin’s Act was
enacted and made it a crime to treat a handful of domesticated
animals cruelly however, it didn’t protect general welfare of
animals. Another reason for the harsh treatment of animals is the
capitalistic nature of humans. Most industries rely on animal
exploitation or oppression to better themselves and the bottom line
is that the animals by themselves, are powerless to stop the
exploitation of their habitats and their bodies. Governments are so
concerned with their constituents and winning elections that animal
rights get lost in the shuffle. Until recently, most animal issues in
the corporate world were pushed to the side and not given
consideration. Within the last 30 years many “social and ethical
revolutions (Rollin)” have taken place. Among them is the concern
for animal rights and well- being.
The reasons for change are many. One reason is that our society
has become concerned for the rights and well-being of oppressed
and disadvantaged groups, including minorities, the handicapped
and women (Rollins). Another reason for change involves views of
animals as members of the family and not merely sources for food
or labor (Rollins). With such changes taking place in society’s
view of animals, it would stand to reason that the corporate world
would have to make changes in the way it behaves. Hence, this
enlightenment led to the formation of movements to support
animal rights movements. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act body
(AWA) was formed to regulate what humans may do to animals in
areas of agriculture, biomedical research, entertainment.
However, there is a modern social reform movement championed
by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, which states that many non-
human animals have basic interests and deserve recognitions,
consideration and protection.

Animal Rights Movements

1. American Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals

(ASPCA) formed in 1866 by Henry Burgh. They advocate that
 animals be entitled to kind and respectful treatments and must
be protected under the law.
2. Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
3. Oxford Group founded by Richard Ryder.

People that advocated for animals Rights are:

Peter Singer, Richard Ryder, Jane Goodall, Tom Regan, Gary, Ruth
Harrison, Brigid Brophy.
1. Peter Singer: He was an Australian ethical philosopher. His
association with a vegetarian student group led him to adopt
vegetarianism (the practice of living solely on vegetables, fruits,
grain, legumes, and nuts). He became exposed to the knowledge of
advocacy for animal rights on the grounds that animals ought to
live freely as they wish without being used, exploited or interfered
with by humans. He formulated the utilitarian principle of animals
right as emulated from Jeremy Bentham. Here, Singer portrays the
utilitarian grounds that animal rights be protected because it would
eliminate pain and killing of animals and hence brings more
happiness to the greater numbers of animals. He also emphasized
on “speciesism” which is the practice of treating members of one
specie as morally more important than others. He wrote a major
book where he advocated for animal rights, “Animal liberation: A
new ethics for our treatment of animals” (1975).
Animal rights aim at autonomy and so just as human rights safeguard
the basic tenets of humans worth and existentialism, so does animal
rights aim to do same. However, the various attempts to practice
animal rights has failed and at such a subcategory terminology and
approach is to be adopted which is Animal Welfare. Animal welfare is
centered on practices designed to govern the treatment of animals
being dominated by humans either for the purposes of food, research
or entertainment. Animal welfare doesn’t seek to equate animals with
human in terms of rights but rather animal welfare seeks to protect the
animals of suffering, incessant killings and to ensure that animals live
a qualitative life.

2. Tom Regan: He was an American philosopher. He took on the

Kantian deontological approach in advocating for animal rights. He
wrote “The Case for the Animal Rights” (1983). He advocated that
animals be accorded rights because they are part of all subjects of
life which possess inherent value in themselves and thus deserve to
be treated as an end in themselves not as a means to an end.
He further divulged into the nature and criteria of “A subject of a
life”.
He said, a subject of life must possess the following;

. Beliefs, desires, and perception

. Memory

. Sense of future

. Emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain.

. Preference and welfare interests.

. Ability to initiate action in pursuit of goals.

. A psychological identity.

. Logicality independent of their utility.

 Haven expatiated these criteria, it is noticeable that most non-human
animals do not possess these qualifications except a few and hence
this automatically downplays the need for animal rights advocacy.
He critiqued the utilitarian principle of Peter Singer by stating that if
an action is immoral irrespective of the pleasure it brings, such action
cannot be justified.
He further abolished the exploitation of animals for food, commercial
hunting and animal testing.
3. Richard Ryder: He created the term “speciesism” in 1970. He
advocated for animal rights in his books; “Victims of science”
(1975)., “Animal Revolution” (1989).

4. Ruth Harrison: Wrote a book titled “Animal machines” (1964). She

criticized factory farming.

5. Brigid Brophy: He wrote “The rights of animals”.

6. Aldo Leopold’s Eco-Centric and Holistic views: Deep ecology and

environmental ethics take a broader view, arguing that animals are
part of a larger ecological system that deserves respect. Thinkers
like Aldo Leopold advocate for a land ethic, which suggests that
humans have a duty to protect the integrity, stability, and beauty of
the natural world, including animal life.

Arguments in Favor of Animal Rights.

There are so many reasons why many people advocate for animals to be
accorded rights and some of the reasons are:
1. Sentients: So many scholars and animal rights advocates make
claims that animals are sentient beings and hence deserve to be
accorded rights.
2. Elimination of Environmental problems such as erosions, air
pollutions, etc. caused by factory farming: Animal Rights
advocates claims that when animals are protected and not killed or
used for commercial purposes, there will be more neatness and
serenity in the environment. The environment that will be free be
free from industrial pollution.
3. Animal rights advocates often times advocate for animal rights
because they want animals to be eliminated from sufferings,
killings and unjust treatments.
4. According to Tom Regan, animals deserves right because they have
inherent values in themselves irrespective of their utility to man.

Arguments against Animal rights

A number of arguments are put forward against the idea that
animals have rights. Some of the arguments are:
1. Rationalism: Unlike humans, animals don’t have the capacity
to think critically
2. Animals are not really conscious
3. Animals were put on earth to serve human beings
4. Animals don’t have souls
5. Animals don’t behave morally
6. Animals are not members of the ‘moral community’
7. Animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment.
 However, as a Group in the course of this research, we have
unanimously agreed to argue against the advocacy of animal rights.
Below are our propositions as to why non- human animals do not
deserve to be accorded rights:

1. Mental capabilities and morality of non- human animals:

As much as there are so many advocates of animal rights, there is need
to properly analyze the mental capabilities of the non-human animals
that are to be accorded with humans. Can the non- human animals
properly comprehend situations and handle them as agents. Man by
nature is rational and is a moral agent that can make decisions and
choices for himself and also be responsible for his choices and Human
beings also belong to a “moral community”, Can the same be said of
non- human animals?
2. Person hood: Standing on the arguments of Gary Francine a
legal practitioner who made a case against according non-
animal rights on the basis of person hood; that is to say that all
non-human animals must be embedded with person hood to be
able to fend for themselves and not be owned by humans. We
propose this motion further by stating that non- animals should
not be accorded rights unless they are endowed with legal
person hood independent of their utility to man.
3. Social contract theory: The contract theories were formed
because of the harmonization of rational men that sort for an
adjudicating body (the state) to regulate their affairs and daily
activities. This body, now called “The State” regulate,
preserves and protects the Rights being accorded to human
 beings. The questions now are; do non- human animals have
the consciousness and rationality to come together to form a
contract? Do they have any contract theories to preserve
animal rights? If they do not have such contract theory, they do
not deserve to be accorded animal rights.
4. Economic relevance of animals for human well-being: It is
unarguably proven that animals and animal by-products are
necessary for commercialization and building of the economy
of a nation. Example; the use of animal hides and skins for
clothes, shoes, footwear, ornaments for man’s use.
The use of wool from sheep for brushes, blankets, rugs, etc. for
man’s use.
The use of eggs from poultry birds for paints, proteins, vaccines,
cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, adhesives, etc.
The meat from animals for food.

Exportation of animal by-products for income.

To mention a few, these and more are the relevance of animals
in sustaining the welfare and wellbeing of man and his society. If
animals are then accorded rights, how would man fend and survive? For
these reasons, animals do not need to be accorded rights.

5. Biblical Standpoint: From the beginning, it was an order from God

unto man to dominate over everything that existed upon the earth
including animals all for his well-being and comfort. Hence, man
has the autonomous right to decide if animals should be accorded
rights or not.
6. Medical Grounds: Medical ethics, as defined by Wikipedia.org “is
the discipline of evaluating the merits, risks and social concerns of
activities in the medical field”. Medical ethics provide suggestions
and principles that doctors and other healthcare professionals
should take into consideration while treating patients. These
principles include the Hippocratic Oath of do no harm; the patient’s
right to dignity, truthfulness and honesty; acting in the best interest
of the patient; justice with regard to treatment and the patient’s
right to choose or refuse treatment (Wikipedia). Acting in the best
interests of animals is important since they have provided and
continue to provide science with potential life saving technology
and knowledge. However, the twist here is that, the creation and
use of technology will undoubtedly be one of the greatest legacies
of humankind. From the creation of fire, to the wheel, electricity
and computers, humankind’s thirst for knowledge and creation is
unquenchable. The field of medicine is no exception. Here,
humanity is committed to unlocking the doors of the human
condition, eradicating disease and improving the quality of life for
future generations. The research needed to accomplish these tasks,
in most cases, involves a heavy price. This price is millions of
animal lives. Animals are involved in medical experimentations of
varying sorts and degrees, all to help further the cause of human
life and well-being. The use of animals in science has its
beginnings in ancient Rome and Greece (Ho). Here vivisections
were first performed by cutting the throat of a drinking pig to study
the act of swallowing (Ho). It was believed that vivisection was the
only way to obtain knowledge of actual bodily functions and
practice surgical skills (Ho). It is through these early procedures
that knowledge has advanced so rapidly in the field of disease and
medicine. The practice of vivisection plays an important role in
 medical advancements, though it does not come without
controversy. It is argued that this research procedure is unethical
and inhumane treatment toward animals. Many in the 18 th and 19th
century, as well as today, share these thoughts. At the same time, it
can also be argued that much of what we know today about
medicine would not exist without vivisection. Studying animals is
a way to understand life processes (Ho). Those involved in the
controversy surrounding medical experimentation want to better
medical science but not at a cost to the animals. What rights do
animals have in medical experimentation? What will be the cost, in
medical advancements and human rights, if animals are given more
rights? At any one time there are numerous types of medical
experiments taking place around the world. The United States is
not the only country involved in research of disease. Currently,
there is much talk about cloning, genetic engineering and
xenotransplantation. These medical breakthroughs have garnered
much attention due to their highly controversial nature. All three of
these medical practices have the ability to take medicine and the
eradication of disease into places never thought possible with early
medicine. The problem is that they require animals as their test
subjects.

Hence upon these aforementioned propensities, animals should not

be accorded moral rights. However, they can be cared for by man and
treated humanely but cannot be equated with man in terms of rights.
As a Group, we advocate for Animal Welfare as against animal rights.
Conclusion

From all propositions made against animal rights movements, it is

permissible to say that a world in which non-human animals are
free from human exploitation still seems far off. However, thanks
to advocacy campaigns raising awareness of the harmful conditions
animals experience in places like factory farms. This movements
and advocacies might however not result in the acceptance of
autonomy of animal rights but will surely promote the
consciousness of animal welfare.

Bibliography

Animal rights @https://encyclopedia. com

Aristotle. (1985). Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge University Press.

Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation.

Brittanica.com

Human league.com
Kant, I. (1785). Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals. Cambridge university
press.

Singer, P. (1975), Animal liberation.

Study. Com
Wikipedia.com