Samantha Huser
Professor Eddy
Writing 131
11 November 2015
Title
The standards of ethics are often difficult to establish, especially when it comes to whether or not humans and animals should be allowed different rights, or whether they are completely equal. This also includes whether or not all humans should be equal. Moreover another huge concern with ethics is when an unethical action might be considered the best choice; for example it is considered unethical to use animals to do research, but in some cases this might looked past. Depending upon the benefits of the research some might be slightly ok with using the animals. Often there is controversy over whether or not humans and animals should be held to an equal level, and even more whether or not animals can feel pain just as humans. Some just like Peter Singer who Francis Fukuyama discussed in his essay, seem to believe that animals should be held to a higher power and be considered more valuable than that of humans. Fukuyama quotes from Peter Singer in his article “Human Dignity”, “the need for animal rights, since animals can experience pain and suffering as well as humans, and the downgrading of the rights of infants and elderly people who lack certain key traits, like self-awareness, that would allow them to anticipate pain. The rights of certain animals in his view, deserve greater respect than those of certain human beings” (Fukuyama 190). Overall, Singer is saying that depending upon the mental ability of the human and depending upon the animal it may be in demand of much more reverence than the human. Of course, there are several opinions in which other would throw this out just as Fukuyama would. He believes in the exact opposite and focuses on the importance of “human dignity.” Fukuyama is a strong believer in everyone being held equal no matter “race, gender, disability, or virtually any other characteristic” (Fukuyama 190). It may be possible that the animals do feel pain, but others would not agree with the idea of animals receiving greater respect than humans. David Foster Wallace, author of “Consider the Lobster” does believe that animals do feel pain. He goes on the explain the Main Lobster Festival and how they have a huge tank full of lobster cooking that everyone sees right in front of them. Wallace explains, “and worse is when the lobster is fully immersed. Even if you cover the kettle and turn away, you can usually hear the cover rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push it off. Or the creature’s claws scraping the sides of the kettle as it thrashes around. The lobster, in other words, behaves very much as you or I would behave if we were plunged into boiling water (with the obvious exception of screaming)” (Wallace 506). Although in this excerpt he is talking about cooking lobster at home it still explains how the lobster acts when it is put into boiling water just as we, as humans would. Although the lobsters have hard shells that does not mean that they are susceptible to pain. They feel it just as anyone would. According to the beliefs of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), this would definitely be considered an unethical decision. It is not fair that lobster be put into a pot of boiling water fully alive to suffer until they finally die from the intense heat. Fukuyama and Wallace both agree that the rights of animals are very important and that there is a huge difference between unethical and ethical ways in which to accomplish a task, such as eating lobster as described in Wallace’s essay. For many, it is hard to see why all humans do not all always have the same rights. Why should one individual be considered different from the other? How can someone be so harsh in to separate someone because of certain classifications. In the essay “Human Dignity” by Francis Fukuyama he again quotes another source, David Hull says, “‘I, for one, would be extremely uneasy to base something as important as human rights on such temporary contingencies [as human nature]… I fail to see why it matters. I fail to see, for example why we must all be essentially the same to have rights’” (Fukuyama 188). Here Hull is discussing how he feels about human rights and how he does not understand why everyone has to be equal. He wants everyone to be for themselves and not worrying about whether every individual around oneself is offered the same. What he fails to see here is that without equality, everyone would be oppressed and struggling. The struggle on society would be horrific and there would be tons of chaos. Based on Fukuyamas beliefs, he would want equality for everyone, no one should be discriminated against because of a certain characteristic they may portray. No matter the differences everyone should be offered the same as the person before in order to maintain the best life possible. The Dalai Lama author of “Ethics and the New Genetics” would also agree. In his essay he states, “For me, one of the most striking and heartening effects of our knowledge of the genome is the astounding truth that the differences in the genomes of the different ethnic groups around the world are so negligible as to be insignificant. I have always argued that the differences of color, language, religion, ethnicity, and so forth among human beings have no substance in the face of our basic sameness” (The Dalai Lama 137). It is unbelievable how one individual can look at another and make quite a few judgments and base their decisions on that person just based on their appearance. Never judge a book by its cover is a famous saying and it is absolutely true. No one ever knows the others story just by walking by and seeing them. The Dalai Lama explains how he fails to see how individuals judge others by certain characteristics viewable to anyone. His main point here is that everyone deserves equality. It is unfair to allow someone one right and then deny it to another because they are not exactly the same as the first. Humans are humans no matter what, and they all deserve to be treated entirely equal.