The Social Contract Theory and Animals Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The Social Contract Theory and Animals - Essay Example This essay stresses that human beings have no known form of direct duty to the animals. Only an individual who has a moral duty cannot be able to have a moral obligation. From the above understanding, animals have no moral duty and hence, no moral obligation. Both human beings and animals would have interest but the interests of human beings in the social contract theory override those of the animals. As such, if the human beings have an interest to kill and eat animals, that interest would be morally justified and it would override the interests that animals have to stay alive. No morals would have been broken in this case. This paper makes a conclusion that only rational beings can be in a position to enter into a social contract. Those beings that are not rational, that is the animals, lack this standing. The rational beings have moral duties and responsibilities that they are required to adhere to. On the contract, animals lack these moral duties and responsibilities. It would, therefore, be proper to argued that animals have no moral standing whatsoever and they cannot take part in a social contract. The form of protection given to human beings under the social contract by the government cannot possibly be given to the animals as well. The animals are still in a state of nature and they have no moral values guiding their day to day activities.

Ethical theories Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Ethical theories - Research Paper Example There is a way of classifying ethical theories. It begins by evaluating a given theory based on how it connects the right conduct with the right character. Some theories evaluate that the consequences of a given conduct is due to its right conduct. However, the theories focus less on moral character. Such theories are classified as teleological. Theories that focus more on the moral character are classified as deontological. Another way is evaluating the theories based on its consequences if they exist. There are theories with more emphasis on the consequences. They are classified as consequentialist. Those that do not concentrate on the consequences are classified as non consequentialist. The other way is determining how many principles that guide each theory’s view concerning morality of actions. Some theories only rely on a single rule to determine the morality of an action. Such theories are classified as monistic. The theories that rely on multiple rules are classified as pluralistic, for example, the moral life of a nun. A nun’s moral life does not match with a mother’s moral life; however, there is no measure to determine which is preferable. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. It deals with more with consequences of these theories. According to studies, the utilitarianism is easy to apply. Furthermore, it has specifications for what is wrong or right. It has clear-cut choices between actions. However, utilitarianism has its own disadvantages. The theory often depends on predicting the results of actions. It is not easy to know the consequences of certain actions. Researchers argue that the calculations used to determine the right actions in this theory are time consuming and very complicated. Furthermore, the theory does not identify any individual rights violated for the sake of the great good. Due to the above disadvantages, some scholars proposed a modification to the theory. The modification will demand the behavior to be