Need someone to answer below the contrary view on the topic i wrote about. Its needs to be a minimum 125 words with direct questions. I also need you to identify the ethical schools of thought, be sure to quote from the readings to illustrate your points, followed by MLA citation, both in-text and on a Works Cited page. I wrote animals do have rights, this person below doesn't think so please respond to it.
Do you think that non-human animals have interests? Does this mean that they also have rights? Explain.
As significant as non-human animals may be in this world, nevertheless, I do not believe that they possess any personal interests or personal rights in life (i.e. as far as interests and rights that arise as a result of conscience decision-making is concerned). Because in order to possess such qualities as this, non-human animals would have to have the ability to both reason and exercise free will-which is something that has only been granted to the human race according to the dictates of natural law (Magee).
For this reason, since having the ability to reason and exercise free will involves making choices that are accompanied with moral consequences, I therefore believe that deontological ethics is what is most applicable in this matter, since non-animals are not capable of making right choices that are in ". . . conformity with a moral norm" (Alexander and Moore). Thus in my opinion, I believe that this reality alone should be enough to eliminate all conflicts and arguments about this matter.
But with this said, this does not mean that non-human animals do not possess any worth in this world. On the contrary, non-human animals conduct themselves exactly ". . . according to the law that is written into their nature" (Magee). So by this principle non-human animals should be treated in accordance with the purpose that they serve in this world. For example, there are some non-human animals whose purpose in this world is to serve as food (e.g. chickens, cows, turkeys, deer, etc.) for both humans and other carnivorous animals.
Likewise, there are other non-human animals that serve as pets for the human race and that in most places would be considered immoral to be used for human consumption (e.g. dogs, cats, horses, etc.). However, in whatever capacity that any non-human animal might serve in this world, all human beings (i.e. according to the theory of deontological ethics) should recognize that it would be morally wrong to intentionally abuse any non-human animal on the basis of its non-human status.
Therefore, it is concluded that although non-human animals may not necessarily possess personal interests or rights in this world, nevertheless, they should still be treated with respect in accordance to whatever purpose that natural law has assigned for them to serve in the earth.
Works Cited
Alexander, Larry and Michael Moore. "Deontological Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition). Web. 14 March 2016.
Magee, Joseph M. "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Natural Law". Thomistic Philosophy Page. Thomistic Philosophy Page, 2 May 2015. Web. 14 March 2016.