Essay 1 HGHR: Human rights are too anthropocentric
After world war two, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was
adopted by and General Assembly of the United Nation This document contains fundamental
human rights that need to be universally protected (United Nations, z.d.). Some people say
that this declaration is too anthropocentric, that is too focused on human rights, and that the
rights should also apply to non-human animals. I do not agree with this statement.
First of all, humans are the only animals that hold moral values (Ayala, 2010; Hagan, 2011).
This morality is not something we are born with, but it is something we learn. It is based on
the ability to reflect on your own, and other's actions and make a judgment (Decety & Cowell,
2016). Our actions are based on this morality. Not only the conduction of the UDHR is based
on morality, but also compliance is based on the moral values that humans have. Therefore, in
my opinion, the foundation of human rights is morality. Because humans are the only species
that have morality and actions of non-human animals are not based on their reflection and
judgment, I do not think that the UDHR is too anthropocentric (Hagan, 2011). After all, it is
an agreement made by and complied with by humans, based on their morality.
Opponents might say that human rights are too anthropocentric because animals should have
rights too. According to them, animals should have rights because they should be treated well
(Goralnik & Nelson, 2012). It is indeed indisputable that animals should be treated right, that
they should have freedom, that they should be treated with dignity, and so on. However, in
my opinion, it would not make sense to call this animal rights. Because, as I explained before,
the conduction and compliance of these rights are based on a common feeling of morality. We
should ensure animal wellbeing, and we should make and comply with agreements we make
about treating animals, but this should not be called animal rights, but animal welfare.
So, to conclude, I do not agree with the statement that human rights are too anthropocentric.
The foundation of human rights is morality, something only humans have. Furthermore, it is
indisputable that animals should be treated well, but because animals do not hold moral values
and would not comply with these rights among themselves this should be called animal
welfare, and not animal rights.
References
After world war two, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was
adopted by and General Assembly of the United Nation This document contains fundamental
human rights that need to be universally protected (United Nations, z.d.). Some people say
that this declaration is too anthropocentric, that is too focused on human rights, and that the
rights should also apply to non-human animals. I do not agree with this statement.
First of all, humans are the only animals that hold moral values (Ayala, 2010; Hagan, 2011).
This morality is not something we are born with, but it is something we learn. It is based on
the ability to reflect on your own, and other's actions and make a judgment (Decety & Cowell,
2016). Our actions are based on this morality. Not only the conduction of the UDHR is based
on morality, but also compliance is based on the moral values that humans have. Therefore, in
my opinion, the foundation of human rights is morality. Because humans are the only species
that have morality and actions of non-human animals are not based on their reflection and
judgment, I do not think that the UDHR is too anthropocentric (Hagan, 2011). After all, it is
an agreement made by and complied with by humans, based on their morality.
Opponents might say that human rights are too anthropocentric because animals should have
rights too. According to them, animals should have rights because they should be treated well
(Goralnik & Nelson, 2012). It is indeed indisputable that animals should be treated right, that
they should have freedom, that they should be treated with dignity, and so on. However, in
my opinion, it would not make sense to call this animal rights. Because, as I explained before,
the conduction and compliance of these rights are based on a common feeling of morality. We
should ensure animal wellbeing, and we should make and comply with agreements we make
about treating animals, but this should not be called animal rights, but animal welfare.
So, to conclude, I do not agree with the statement that human rights are too anthropocentric.
The foundation of human rights is morality, something only humans have. Furthermore, it is
indisputable that animals should be treated well, but because animals do not hold moral values
and would not comply with these rights among themselves this should be called animal
welfare, and not animal rights.
References
