Animal ethics
Ethics: There are more than four hundred pet cemeteries in the United States. People often spend hundreds of dollars to bury their dogs, cats, birds, goldfish, and hamsters. Is this practice morally acceptable?
Introduction
Animal ethics are one of the most pertinent ethical issues in cotemporally American society. The main contention lies with the attachment of human traits, rights, and morality to animals and the distinction between the two. Ethically, the interaction of human beings with animals is guided by moral questions such as what is the value of an animal? To what extent should we be concerned about the welfare of animals? Is there a humane way of killing or disposing of animals? Moral questions relating to animals fundamentally examine the ethical and ontological status of animals in human society, as well as the ethical similarities and distinction between the welfare of human beings and the welfare of animals. As such, animal ethics borders on all the major ethical concepts of utilitarianism, Kant’s theory, natural law theory, virtue theory, care ethics, and symphonology. This paper will explore and use these concepts to argue that the practice of spending hundreds of dollars to bury animals in pet cemeteries in the United States is morally acceptable and justified. The thesis statement of this paper is that the altruistic nature of human beings extends to no-human beings and that justifies the moral subjectivism of spending hundreds of dollars to bury dogs, cats, birds, goldfish, and hamsters in pet cemeteries.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is the moral concept developed by John Stuart Mill that argues that the consequences/outcomes of a decision or action entirely determine if the decision or the action was right or wrong. From this concept, if the outcomes are desirable the subject action or decision was good regardless of its objectives, circumstances or nature of its implementation, and inversely if the outcomes of a decision or action are undesirable, then the subject decision or action was bad regardless of its objectives, circumstances or nature of its implementations. The concept emphasizes on individuals evaluating the consequences of their decisions or actions as the primary factor of decision making (Barbara & Andrew, p.93). Based on its basic moral principle of utility, the concept defines good in terms of pleasure or happiness and bad in terms of pain and expounds that all alternatives in human actions or decisions result in pleasure and pain simultaneously and that the element of pain orb pleasure that dominates an action or decision ultimately determines whether the action or decision was good or bad (Barbara & Andrew, p.97). Through this concept, all human behavior is morally justifiable as long as the outcomes of the behavior derive pleasure. The human behavior of spending hundreds of dollars in burying animals in pet cemeteries is driven by the desire to gain happiness by satisfying the intrinsic altruistic needs of individuals. In a cost-benefit perspective, people sacrifice hundreds of dollars to bury their pets because the amount of happiness derived from the practice is greater than the amount of pain inflicted by their sacrifice on all parameters. Hence, on the basis of utilitarianism, the practice is morally acceptable and supports the thesis of this paper.
Kant’s Theory
Kant’s theory is a deontological moral concept developed by Emmanuel Kant that argues that the consequences of people’s decisions and actions are often beyond their control, and thus they cannot be held morally responsible for the outcomes of their actions or decisions. The concept argues that the motive of a decision or action is the primary determinant of whether it is right or wrong because, unlike outcomes, motives are often under the control of individuals. The theory argues that there is an intrinsic good and bad in every action or decision and that doing what is right to achieve the good determines whether the motive of an action is good or bad (Barbara & Andrew, p.114). The theory argues that doing the right thing regardless of the outcome of the action is what determines whether the action was right good or bad and that human beings have a duty to do the right thing, whether they know it or not. The theory’s main principles are the categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative. The categorical imperative determine good from bad by prescribing to individuals what they ought to do no matter what, while the hypothetical imperative prescribes to individuals what to do to bring about particular desirable outcomes (Barbara & Andrew, p.115). Through Kant’s theory, the practice of spending hundreds of dollars to bury animals in pet cemeteries can be evaluated through the motive. The motive of burying animals in cemeteries is fundamentally and altruistically doing the right thing for the welfare of the subject animals. In the context of the welfare of animals, the right thing to do is to treat animals with a particular level of dignity at all times. In the context of the categorical imperative, individuals have no choice but to dispose of animals in a dignified manner in order to merit their welfare and do the right thing. Altruistically, the practice of burying animals in pet cemeteries accords them dignity. This practice does the right thing and with the right motives, and therefore it is morally acceptable according to Kant’s theory. Thus, Kant’s theory justifies the practice as acceptable and supports the premise of this paper.
Natural Law Theory
The natural law theory is a moral concept developed from the Nicomachean ethics theory by Aristotle. The natural law theory relates the morality of human beings with nature on the basis of the tenets that nature is the foundation of the moral law, moral law is applicable universally and that the law is accessible to human logic. Essentially, the theory argues that nature has intrinsic moral laws, and those laws can be understood by reasoning (Barbara & Andrew, p.135). As such, good is defined by the perfection of natural abilities, definitive traits. Happiness is a core human trait, and any actions geared towards the perfection of this trait are good traits, while any actions or decisions that counter the perfection of this trait are bad. The theory argues that human distinctive rational elements such as happiness fundamentally define what is good and what is bad. Any actions or decisions that improve our rational elements are good, and any actions or decisions that distort our rational elements are bad. Human rational elements give them the ability to know truth and reality and to make wise choices that make them healthy and protects them from undue risks (Barbara & Andrew, p.137). The theory argues that just like any other species, human beings share a common purpose, capacities, intrinsic goods among other entities, which all compound into human nature. Through human nature, humans require some essential things to thrive, such as natural rights. Through natural law, theory altruism is a rational human element, since, it is a distinctively human trait. The human practice of spending hundreds of dollars to bury animals in pet cemeteries improves the rational element of altruism and thus is a good practice. Additionally, human beings have a natural right to protect and care for nature; hence, burying animals is a manner of caring for the welfare of nature. As such, the natural rights theory justifies the practice as acceptable and supports the premise of this paper.
Virtue theory
The virtue theory is a conception of Aristotle’s teachings of virtue and happiness. The concept emphasizes the need for human beings to live on the basis of their virtues/excellences, which comprise two categories; moral excesses and intellectual excesses (Barbara & Andrew, p.153). Intellectual excesses include abilities to reason, understand, and judge, and they are learned from secondary parties such as teachers. Moral excesses enable individuals to act appropriately and include traits such as courage and honesty, and they are leaned through repetition. Aristotle argued that virtues are means between the extremes of deficiency and excess. Other theories, such as Confucius, viewed virtues. The virtues theory distinguish how humans ought to be unlike other moral concepts that distinguish what human ought to do in terms of good and bad. Having virtues makes them good, not having them makes them bad. Through this concept, human beings hold altruism as a virtue of care, and that makes them good. The practice of burying animals in pet cemeteries is driven by this virtue. Hence the virtue concept justifies the practice as morally acceptable and supports the premise of this paper.
Care Ethics
Care ethics refers to gender-differentiated ethical perspectives—the Care perspective, which is predominantly associated with women and the Traditional perspective, which is associated with men. The care perspective holds that the primary moral obligation of individuals is to help others and prevent harm. The Traditional perspective holds that the primary moral obligation of individuals is not to act unfairly. Perspectives are based on the philosophical assumption developed by Sigmund Freud among other scholars that women are inferior to men, mainly due to differences in growth and biological phenomena. The complexity among which men and women relate with each other and with animals illustrate that in the practice of burying animals in pet cemeteries, both perspectives are applied. Women bury animals as a method of care, which is part of their altruistic nature, while men tolerate it in order not to do harm. Hence, through care ethics, the practice is acceptable and supports the thesis of this paper.
Symphonology
Symphonology is a moral concept that moral decision-making processes on the basis of agreements between individuals. The theory argues that the basis of interaction among human beings is the agreement of not to aggress. The theory argues that this agreement is the foundation of ethics in human interactions and that for it to be effective, there are prerequisite bioethical standards that must be met, which include freedom, objectivity, self-assertion, autonomy, beneficence, and fidelity. The agreement is bound by the context of awareness, which consists of knowledge and situational awareness. The major component of Symphonology is reasoning in which decisions are objectively approached in a justifiable rational way. Through this theory, the practice of burying animals in pet cemeteries can be termed as morally acceptable and justified because bioethical standards of making not to aggress are components of the altruistic nature of human beings. As such, the agreement not to aggress is altruistically extended to animals and manifested through practices such as dignified disposal. Hence, the theory also supports the premise of this paper.
Conclusion
This paper has defined and explored the moral concepts of utilitarianism, Kant’s theory, Natural law theory, virtue theory, care ethics, and symphonology as they relate to the human practice of burying dogs, cats, birds, goldfish, hamsters and other animals in pet cemeteries. This paper has used these concepts to support the argument that the subject human practice is morally acceptable and prove the thesis statement that the altruistic nature of human beings extends to no-human beings and that justifies the moral subjectivism of spending hundreds of dollars to bury dogs, cats, birds, goldfish and hamsters in pet cemeteries.
Works cited
Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala. Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. 2013. Eighth edition.