The Philosophical Moral Consideration Conundrum

Many different theories attempt to explain what is morally considerable, and what is not. Philosophers such as Peter Singer, and Tom Regan generally agree in their defenses of what has moral status. Humans are moral agents and capable of applying moral principals in decision making, whereas sentient non-human animals are moral patients, capable of being benefited or harmed, but they lack the free will and reason necessary to act on morals. Humankind must better understand this distinction of what is morally considerable because it extends the moral realm to other animals and fundamentally changes how we should treat non-human sentient beings.

What is the importance of rights and how can an animal have a right as we have a right? Well obviously animals don't have all the same rights that we do, such as the right to freedom of religion or the right to vote; these are uniquely human rights, but the fundamental right we share with them is respectful treatment. People should not use animals without regard for their interest and against their will merely to promote human interests. They have a biography, and not simply a biology. The complexities of their conscious mental life such as, perception, memory, preferences, intention, psychophysical identity over time, and a sense that their experiential life is faring well or ill for them is sufficient criteria for their possessing inherent value and is central to Regan's subject of a life philosophy. All these fundamental similarities are shared with animals that are turned into food, tools, cloths, and performers by our culture. Respectful treatment to all subjects of a life recognizes this inherent value and that it does not come in degrees. Therefore, sentient beings cannot be sacrificed for the benefit of others. Logically, animals have moral status and therefore have rights, and respect for the individual that has moral status limits the freedom of what other people may do. The same goes for the rapist who violates the victim by using the victim merely as means to the rapist's ends. Our culture does the same thing when it comes to animals. Our society grinds on by abusing other animals; one might as well say we are in the abuse business.

Unlike Peter Singer, Tom Regan is an animal rights "radical", in the best possible sense of that word. This means he is an advocate for animal rights and for the total abolishment of using animals merely as means, whereas the key to Singer's philosophy lies in Utilitarianism. In the case of vivisection, Singer justifies minimal suffering and violation of animal rights if it is outweighed by the benefits. This theory is dependent

on the consequences of our actions and suggests the morally best action is that which brings about the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of sentient beings. Ultimately, Regan and Singer both believe the ability to suffer is what equalize humans and animals apart from other things.

Every vicious exploitation industry, whether it is factory farming or the vivisection industry, say that they are acting "humanely" and that they care about the welfare of animals. This only adds to the challenge of making what is invisible, visible to the public. Ignorant consumers don't question these industries and leave it up to the law and inspectors to decide what is morally right. Consequently, "humane" treatment of animals, in the eyes of the law, still allows them to be subjected to radiation, electric shock, military weapons, lasers, toxicants and extreme heat and cold. They can be burned, scalded, drowned, blinded, suffocated, deprived of sleep or maternal care and invasive means are used to give them heart attacks, cancers, seizures, sever their limbs and crush their organs, often without medication to dull the pain because it might interfere with the experiment. The government and big industries tell the public that things are okay, when, in fact, if members of the general public were to commit any of these crimes, they would be prosecuted. They have hi-jacked the concepts of "humane" and "animal welfare" and continue to spew it out in their