PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Contemporary Social Issues

You are currently viewing PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Contemporary Social Issues

The issue of moral rights for animals has been up for a long time and is still a contentious one. Lately, there has been a developing interest in basic entitlements, with some contending that creatures ought to have similar moral privileges as people (Carlier and Treich, 2020). Others, on the other hand, contend that animals do not possess moral rights because they lack the necessary characteristics of personhood and moral agency. The above-mentioned transcript provides a glimpse into this ongoing debate by highlighting various arguments and counterarguments regarding animal moral rights. The existence of objective moral rights for animals, the distinction between value and rights, and the sufficiency of sentience for moral rights are just a few of the objections raised. From the perspective of moral thinking, it is vital to consider the effect of our own proficient conduct on the prosperity of creatures and perceive the privileges they might have.

Importance of the Problem

The issue of animal moral rights is important in today’s society because it raises questions about how animals should be treated ethically (Stucki, 2020). Creatures have a limit with regard to many sentiments, including agony and delight. Subsequently, it is fundamental to perceive their ethical worth and furnish them with suitable assurance. The discussion over basic entitlements is likewise huge on the grounds that it influences different parts of human existence, including the food business, logical examination, and diversion.

PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Contemporary Social Issues

Several Disagreements

There are a number of Disagreements regarding the issue of moral rights for animals. Certain individuals accept that creatures have moral freedoms and ought to be treated as closures in themselves. Others contend that animals lack moral agency and personhood, denying them moral rights. The principal opposing perspectives on the subject are as follows:

1st Perspective

Animals Have Moral Rights (Coghlan & Cardilini, 2022) Animals have intrinsic moral values and, as a result, merit moral consideration, according to supporters of this viewpoint. It is their conflict that creatures are cognizant elements who can feel delighted, dread, and different feelings. As a result, it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge their moral value and provide them with the appropriate protection. This viewpoint has prompted the development of basic entitlements developments and regulations pointed toward forestalling creature remorselessness.

2nd Perspective

Animals Do Not Have Moral Rights This viewpoint is opposed by those who contend that animals do not possess the necessary characteristics of personhood or moral agency to warrant moral rights. They argue that only people with rationality, free will, self-awareness, and moral responsibility are entitled to moral rights (Wills, 2020). Animals should not be granted moral rights because they lack intrinsic moral worth. This point of view is frequently linked to the exploitation of animals in farming, scientific research, and other fields.

3rd Perspective

Animals Have Few Moral Rights This viewpoint is somewhere in the middle of the previous two. This point of view contends that animals have limited rights and some moral worth. For instance, animals do not have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness (Gray & Fordyce, 2020), but they do have the right to be treated with respect and to be shielded from harm that is not necessary. This point of view is frequently connected with the utilization of creatures in clinical exploration and food creation.

There are many different points of view on the complex issue of animal moral rights. While certain individuals contend that creatures have inherent moral worth and merit moral thought, others battle that creature come up short on essential ascribes to warrant moral privileges. The clashing viewpoints have suggestions for different parts of human existence, including the food business, logical exploration, and amusement. As a result, it is absolutely necessary to continue the discussion regarding the rights of animals and to develop policies that strike a balance between the requirements of humans and the welfare of animals.

Stakeholders Involved

The moral rights of animals are a complicated social issue that involves a number of different stakeholders with varying goals. Three essential partners in this issue incorporate basic entitlements activists, the horticultural business, and logical specialists.

PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Contemporary Social Issues

The essential interest of basic entitlements activists is to safeguard creatures from hurt and guarantee that they are dealt with morally. MacArthur Clark & Sun (2020), argue that animals have inherent value and deserve the same rights as humans, including the right to life, protection from harm, and protection from exploitation. They advocate for the annulment of animal testing, industrial facility cultivating, and different practices that exploit creatures for human advantage. Most of the time, they say that animals should get moral attention because they can feel pain, fear, and suffering.

Farming industry

The rural business has a personal stake in involving creatures for human advantage, especially concerning food creation. They contend that creature government assistance ought to be focused on basic entitlements and that their practices are empathetic and important to fulfill the needs of a developing populace (Hernandez et al., 2022). They also say that many cultures have a long history of using animals to make products like food and other things. Their main argument is that animal welfare laws are in place to make sure that animals are treated well and used for good reasons.

Logical scientists

Logical scientists have an essential interest in propelling information using creatures in research. They contend that creature research is essential for growing new medicines for sicknesses, testing the security of medications and antibodies, and figuring out the fundamental science of creatures and people (De Paula Vieira and Anthony, 2020). While they acknowledge the ethical issues associated with animal research, they argue that the benefits to humans and the potential harms to animals must be balanced. Their main argument is that animal research is strictly regulated and subject to stringent ethical review and that many applications do not yet have alternatives to animal research.

The ethical privileges of creatures is a complicated issue with partners who have different interests and contentions. It is fundamental to present these clashing viewpoints unbiasedly to acquire a superior comprehension of the issue and advance useful conversations and discussions.

Findings of the Research

There is a wealth of research from various academic fields that offers insights that are pertinent to the current social issue of moral rights for animals.

Research in the field of ethics has centered on the creation of moral frameworks for comprehending the moral rights of animals. Some researchers contend that animals only have extrinsic moral value, implying that their moral worth is derived from their utility to humans (Owe & Baum, 2021). In other words, some researchers contend that animals only have intrinsic moral value, implying that they have moral worth in and of themselves.

PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Contemporary Social Issues

Psychology Research in the field of psychology has demonstrated that animals can feel pain, fear, and happiness, indicating that they ought to be given some moral consideration (Mahr & Fischer, 2022). Notwithstanding, there are clashing discoveries on the level of cognizance and mental capacities of creatures, and some contend that creatures miss the mark on the same degree of moral organization as people.


In the field of regulation, research has zeroed in on the legitimate systems for safeguarding the privileges of creatures. There are divergent viewpoints regarding the extent to which animals should be granted legal rights. Some individuals advocate for fundamental rights like the right to life and the freedom from harm, while other individuals advocate for more expansive rights like the right to legal representation and the right to participate in legal proceedings (Fennell & Sheppard, 2021). It is essential to keep in mind that each of these academic fields has findings and perspectives that are at odds with one another. In the field of psychology, for instance, some researchers argue that animals and humans share the same level of consciousness and cognitive abilities. On the other hand, others contend that animals and humans are fundamentally distinct from one another and ought to be treated accordingly. There is still a great deal of debate and disagreement regarding the extent to which animals ought to be accorded moral consideration and legal rights, despite the fact that research from a variety of academic disciplines provides important insights into the issue of moral rights for animals.

Regularizing Morals Hypothesis: The normative ethical theory of utilitarianism holds that actions ought to be evaluated based on their capacity to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people (Martin et al., 2021). According to this theory, the best course of action is one that balances positive and negative outcomes. Utilitarianism can be used to determine whether animals have moral standing and whether their interests ought to be taken into consideration in the context of the moral rights of animals.

Stakeholders and Their Purposes

Animal Rights Activists (Walker & Eggel, 2020) make the case that animals have moral standing and that human and animal interests ought to be treated equally. They accept that creatures are qualified for fundamental privileges, for example, the right to life, the option to be liberated from misery, and the right to real honesty. Animal rights activists are concerned about the well-being of animals and hold the view that animals should not be used for human needs like food, clothing, or research.

Industry Ranchers

Industry ranchers contend that animals don’t have moral standing and that they are not qualified for similar privileges as people (Torpman and Röcklinsberg, 2021). They accept that creatures are property and that they ought to be utilized for human purposes, like food creation. Industry farmers believe that the production of animal products is necessary to meet human needs and are concerned about the economic benefits of animal agriculture.

Tree huggers

Tree huggers contend that the creation of creature items have negative natural effects and that diminishing the utilization of creature items is important to resolve issues, for example, environmental change and deforestation (Beck and Ladwig, 2021). They are concerned about the effects that animal agriculture has on the environment and believe that consuming less meat is necessary for sustainable food systems.

PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Contemporary Social Issues

Basic entitlements ActivistsBasic entitlements activists contend that creatures have moral standing and that their advantages ought to be given equivalent thought to human interests. They hold the belief that animals have the fundamental rights to life, freedom from suffering, and bodily integrity. They argue that humans should not use animals for food, clothing, or research and that animal agriculture is cruel and unethical.

Industry Farmers Industry farmers assert that animals do not have a right to the same rights as humans and that they do not have moral standing. They think that animals belong to the human race and should be used for things like food production. They contend that creature agribusiness is important to address human issues and that the monetary advantages of creature farming are critical.


Preservationists contend that the development of creature items has negative natural effects and that lessening the utilization of creature items is important to resolve issues, for example, environmental change and deforestation. They contend that diminishing meat utilization is essential for supportable food frameworks and that plant-based counts of calories are better for the climate. My Position I believe that animals do have moral standing and that their interests ought to be considered. I think that because animals are sentient and can feel pain and suffering, they should be treated with kindness and consideration. While I recognize the economic advantages of animal agriculture, I believe that animal welfare and minimizing animal suffering should be our top priorities. In addition, I believe that addressing environmental issues like climate change and deforestation requires a reduction in meat consumption for sustainable food systems.

Standardizing Moral Ideas


the capacity to feel pleasure, suffering, and pain.Rights: rights that are bestowed upon individuals in accordance with their moral standing.Utilitarianism: The ethical theory that states that decisions should be made based on how well they can bring happiness to as many people as possible.

Conclusion The current social issue of animal moral rights has been examined and found to be a complex one with a variety of perspectives and stakeholders. Utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and deontology are three different ethical theories that can assist in guiding ethical decision-making and offer distinct perspectives on the subject. Through a fair-minded examination of clashing proof and viewpoints, obviously, there are legitimate contentions on the two sides of the issue, with some upholding more grounded basic entitlements and insurances, while others focus on human interests and monetary contemplations. At last, people and experts have an obligation to know about the effect of their own proficient conduct on this issue and to settle on informed choices that focus on the prosperity of all partners included.


Beck, V., & Ladwig, B. (2021). Ethical consumerism: Veganism. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change12(1), e689.

Carlier, A., & Treich, N. (2020). Directly valuing animal welfare in (environmental) economics. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics14(1), 113.

Coghlan, S., & Cardilini, A. P. A. (2022). A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate. Conservation Biology36(1), e13760.

De Paula Vieira, A., & Anthony, R. (2020). Recalibrating veterinary medicine through animal welfare science and ethics for the 2020s. Animals10(4), Article 4.

Fennell, D. A., & Sheppard, V. (2021). Tourism, animals and the scales of justice. Journal of Sustainable Tourism29(2–3), 314–335.

Gray, C., & Fordyce, P. (2020). Legal and ethical aspects of ‘best interests’ decision-making for medical treatment of companion animals in the UK. Animals10(6), Article 6.

Hernandez, E., Llonch, P., & Turner, P. V. (2022). Applied animal ethics in industrial food animal production: Exploring the role of the veterinarian. Animals12(6), Article 6.

MacArthur Clark, J. A., & Sun, D. (2020). Guidelines for the ethical review of laboratory animal welfare People’s Republic of China National Standard GB/T 35892-2018 [Issued 6 February 2018 Effective from 1 September 2018]. Animal Models and Experimental Medicine3(1), 103–113.

Mahr, J. B., & Fischer, B. (2022). Internally triggered experiences of hedonic valence in nonhuman animals: Cognitive and welfare considerations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17456916221120424.

Martin, R., Kusev, P., Teal, J., Baranova, V., & Rigal, B. (2021). Moral decision making: From Bentham to veil of ignorance via perspective taking accessibility. Behavioral Sciences11(5), Article 5.

Owe, A., & Baum, S. D. (2021). Moral consideration of nonhumans in the ethics of artificial intelligence. AI and Ethics1(4), 517–528.

Stucki, S. (2020). Towards a theory of legal animal rights: Simple and fundamental rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies40(3), 533–560.

Torpman, O., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2021). Reinterpreting the SDGs: Taking animals into direct consideration. Sustainability13(2), Article 2.

Walker, R. L., & Eggel, M. (2020). From mice to monkeys? Beyond orthodox approaches to the ethics of animal model choice. Animals10(1), Article 1.

Wills, J. (2020). Animal rights, legal personhood and cognitive capacity: Addressing ‘leveling-down’ concerns. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment11(2), 199–223.