Rodd, Rosemary. Biology, Ethics, and Animals. Oxford University Press. New York, New York. 1990.

-Used Kant’s text in order to lay down his principles and beliefs. Mainly used simply for background into his theories.

If we examine the question of animal rights cautiously, it is most often viewed as an ethical dilemma as opposed to an economic or cultural issue. This is due to the fact that a life is at stake and we, as humans, must decide if we are justified to take that life, while in the process inflicting suffering, in order to benefit society as a whole. We must almost play God, in a sense, in deciding which animal lives are expendable and which are valuable enough to allow to remain living. This ethical dilemma almost assigns a value to life. The debate over animal rights asks if it is worth killing innocent animals in order to benefit such items as education, material production or human medicine. Looking at this argument, one might say that humans are greedy and disrespectful of God’s creation. But, are we supposed to try experimental medicines and surgical procedures on humans and risk their death? Or is it better to educate students about anatomy and physiology through the sacrifice of animals? Ethically, does the end justify the means? David Lee Miller argues that for us to engage in a strictly ethical conversation on the topic of animal rights, “we would do well to suspend our individual material interests in the outcome of the discussion” (Miller 3). I agree with Miller here that to speak of the determination of animal rights on an ethical level, which is where it should be, we certainly cannot be concerned with how nice it would be to have a full-length mink coat or a fabulous alligator purse. It must come down to the ethics of killing an animal for the sake of the value of its life and not for the sake of weighing the amount of money you will receive for the sale of one hundred pounds of beef. But, simply by looking at how large this debate has grown, we can see that making this separation is very difficult. Often times, material interests get in the way and lead our ethical thought astray. But can it be alright to allow these interests to take charge? This all depends on your ethical standpoint regarding the assignment of rights to animals. If you believe their rights to be non-existent, then what do you care if millions of them are killed? On the other hand, if you see all life as equal then the “senseless” killing of animals is comparable to the slaughter of innocent human beings. There are many viewpoints concerning this issue that need to be dealt with in order to fully grasp the mindset of those so deeply involved in the struggle to determine what, if any, rights that animals possess.

-Used to develop strength and weaknesses of mill’s ideas

-Goes through and evaluates aspects of humans and compares them to animals.

Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Harper & Row Publishers. New York, New York. 1964.

Some topics in this essay:
Bernard Rollin, Catholic Church, Hedonistic Utilitarianism, Lee Miller, Kant Kant, Looking Kant’s, Kant’s Mill’s, Animals Rights, Carolina University, Immanuel Kant, animal rights, moral concern, rights animals, animal experimentation, principle utility, objects moral, pleasures pains, human benefit, ethical dilemma, york york, animals feel pain, press york york, oxford university press, non-human animals act, question animal rights,