The Ethical Treatment of Animals Essay Example for Free

The Ethical Treatment of Animals EssayUtilitarianism values equality of all arouse parties. It is on the principle that when making a conclusion, thorough consideration on the consequent cost and public assistance mustiness be made, and it is on the basis of impartial consideration of all related saki parties that the final finis should be made. Rights-based ethics, however, value the unspoilt of individuals. It is more like individualism. It is on the principle that when making a decision, whether the secure of individuals or groups will be upheld or violated should be evaluated, and it is on the basis of the benefit maximisation of certain individuals or groups that the final decision should be made. The major conflict between utilitarian and rights-based clean reasoning lies in the conflict between the right of one party and the whole party. Utilitarian accepts and sometimes requires the sacrifice of the right of one individual or a small group for the well being of a bigger group. This is absolutely an absurd decision in rights-based moral reasoning.For example, in the spelunking case, a utilitarian would detonate the detonate to save 19 lives at the sacrifice of the one stuck in the hole, while the decision made on rights-based moral reasoning will be not to detonate the dynamite. This is because according to utilitarianism the benefit of detonating the dynamite is way too higher than the cost, while in rights-based moral reasoning by detonating the dynamite the right of the one who got stuck will be violated. In my opinion, the crime of killing fighting dogs is acceptable in right-based moral reasoning but is unacceptable in Utilitarianism. According to the utilitarian moral reasoning, the sacrifice of the interest of a smaller group is acceptable for the good of a bigger group. However, in this case, if dogs count as one group, the sacrifice of the poorly performing dogs is no necessary requirement of the survival of other fighting dogs, nor of the livelihood of every human group. If they do not count as one group, the people who hit the sack dogs must count, the behavior of killing dogs would hurt their feelings, so when impartial consideration of all related interest parties is made, the cost of letting these dogs live must be less than the benefit.Therefore, the behavior of killing dogs is against the Utilitarianism values. Rights-based ethics, nevertheless, defends the right of any individual or group, and theduty is not taken into consideration. Just like the defenders said, the dogs ar Vicks property, and he can do what he like to them, despite the fact that he similarly has the duty to take good c are of them. Even though there is no doubt the right to live is one of the most fundamental rights of any creature, the right-based moral reasoning are for the right of human, dogs, sadly, are not included. So when this right-based moral system is at work, any kind of disposal of ones property is acceptable. Tha t is why I say the crime of Vick the crime of killing fighting dogs is acceptable in right-based moral reasoning but is unacceptable in Utilitarianism.