People have bad habits. For instance, pigs are raised in factory farms, transported in decrepit trailers or trucks, their bodies cut with blades just to label them. Pigs can feel such pain. Inside slaughter houses, cows are stunned and slit until they bleed to death. Inside overcrowded poultry houses, chickens are fed to grow fat superfast that they suffer from heart attacks. In the egg industry, male chicks are killed by means of grinding machines when they are just two days old. An important question needs to be asked, how do we evaluate the moral status of animals?
When the interests of animals and humans clash, according to Peter Singer, the “principle of equality gives no guidance.” The welfare of animals is an important matter because the way we treat nonhuman animals reflects our character as human beings and the kind of society we live in. While we don’t accord animals equality in terms of moral status, the philosopher Jeremy Bentham has pointed out that the question is not, he says, “can they reason?” nor “can they talk?” but, “can they suffer?”
Some don’t feel anything about animals being subjected to pain. We are not saying that animals should be treated in the same way as we treat humans. What people need to understand is that animals too suffer and that they must not be treated like emotion-less objects. The Philippine Animal Welfare Act of 1998, according to Ryan Urbano, “grants moral standing to animals and safeguards their welfare,” but “it does not accord moral status to animals equal to that of humans.”
Should animals possess certain rights? Tom Regan puts into question the issue in terms of the unacceptability of the system. For Regan, “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us, to be eaten or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money.” The common understanding is that people have no direct duties to animals. People see them as consumable resources. People think that they can do them no wrong. For instance, if I kill your goat, I have done something wrong to you, but not to your goat. Thus, I will not kill your goat not because it is wrong to do it to your goat. Rather, I am afraid that you might sue me for violating your rights over your goat.
Regan explains that “as for animals, since they cannot understand contracts, they cannot sign contracts and since they cannot sign, they have no rights.” What Regan means is that we do not have a direct duty to animals since they do not have any legal standing. For instance, the right to life implies the direct duty not to harm any human life. In the case of animals, this means that our duty is to the owners; to animals there is only an indirect obligation. We therefore show some interest to some animals; to others we don’t. But that does not give them any legal or moral right. People are simply being considerate of their welfare.
Animal welfare laws are enacted to protect animals from cruelty and abuse. Animals, many empirical studies have shown, suffer from the excesses of humans, for instance from hunting, caging, enhanced genetic growth, culling, and slaughtering. But the basic principle governing animal welfare laws is not moral duty. To explain, because animals are useful to us, they are of value and must not be abused. It can be said that since the survival of a farmer depends so much on his carabao, then it is morally objectionable that he slaughters his carabao for its meat. Or because you have played with your Pit Bull for so many years, it is unacceptable that you send your pet to a dogfight where it can suffer from injuries.
You might not feel any moral duty to an animal but you can give that basic regard for its well-being. Since animals have a life, they must be viewed as beings with an independent value. When we see living animals as mere resources, we are being inconsiderate by neglecting that value. This is something that every nonhuman animal is at least entitled to.
