There are essentially three perspectives regarding the moral status of animals: Animal welfare, Human dominion, and Animal rights.
Human Dominion
The second position regarding non human animal welfare is known as the Human dominion argument. This particular position contends that while we have dominion over non human animals, these creatures have value only as means to our end.
This position is a bit more radical than the previously cited Animal welfare position. According to this argument everything under animal welfare is permitted but also in addition to these, things such as cockfighting, circuses, rodeos and bull fights are also permitted.
In addition confined exotic animal hunting is also permitted since doing so serves the purpose of human enjoyment and human sport for example. In addition, this position would also permit the injuring of animals in the making of movies.
The philosophical basis of this particular position contends that animals have no moral standing since they lack consciousness, including the consciousness of pain. This seems to be a highly questionable argument, however.
In addition, this particular position would argue that it does not matter morally how we treat non human animals and that no treatment of animals can be judged immoral except in virtue of its indirect effects on humans.
Aristotle’s perspective represents the Animal welfare perspective. According to Aristotle, there is a hierarchy of being in the created order. This hierarchy is rooted in the abilities of the various creatures which comprise creation.
At the risk of oversimplification, in ascending order there are plants, animals, and human beings. Aristotle argued that only animals and human beings possess conscious experience. Therefore, plants are inferior animals and animals are inferior to human beings.
Humans possess the ability to reason while animals have the lower level capacity of instinct. Consequently, animals are here for the purposes of serving the needs of human beings. Humans possess dominion so to speak.
Aquinas, whose theology was based upon Aristotelian philosophy, also fits within this category. He contends that non human animals lack the capacity to direct their own destiny’s and therefore humanity who possesses the ability to rationally anticipate the future and provide for the future are responsible to care for the lower level creatures. Animals are merely instruments and exist for the sake of humans.
