Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy Most Philosophy

Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy

Most philosophy is directed at and in reference to human behavior and human responsibility yet it is presumptuous to believe that Aristotle when building the basis for Natural Law Theory did not include within his biological ideal the actions of humans toward other living beings. Reaching final mature form is said to be the goal for beings when one applies the teleological theory of Natural Law Theory. Therefore if a human were to disrupt the maturation goal of another living being it would be against the tenets of Natural Law Theory: moral law is accessible to human reason; moral law is based on human nature; moral law is universally applicable.

Aristotle makes clear through his work that in order to find happiness we must function perfectly. "human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete. But we must add 'in a complete life.' For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy." (Aristotle trans. W.D. Ross Book I. pg. 8)

He uses the differences between plants and humans and animals and humans as an allegorical device but in so doing he makes clear that to be human and function perfectly we must use the rational element, that separates us from plants and animals. That rational element recognizes the difference and therefore the responsibility of humans as the owners of rational though to be the caretakers and protectors of those living things, which do not share the function of rational thought.

Disrupting the maturation of an animal, for other than a moral reason, say to avoid starvation either through an act of omission or commission would therefore go against human nature. Natural Law Theory would lead an individual to look inside his or herself and determine what is good, what we ought to do. If this is the case it is clear that in the laws of nature there are very few examples of animals killing for sport and wasting the meat and those animals that do this are supported by a whole plethora of animals who then move forward to complete the task of using the resources. Scavengers complete the circle of natural law.

According to Thomas Aquinas, (quoting form notes) "We flourish as humans if we are what we can be. In other words, we ought to promote our species capacities, to further our life and health." Lacking the natural environment, including what he calls the lower beings it is very clear that our health and even our lives would be jeopardized. There would be no clean air, no food to eat and no way for the human condition to exist. "When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct." (Fox, "The Catholic Encyclopedia: Online")

As humans with free will, according to Immanuel Kant and many other thinkers we do not always do what we ought to do and even though, according to natural Law Theory the moral answer is accessible to us through reason we do not always either reason it through or choose the right action. We apply our moral reason according to Kant in his first form, in such a way that we only do that which we can accept or will everyone else to do. If other living beings, and in this case animals, are to be included within the environment of man they must then be seen as integral to that environment and to man.