The new yorker - essay PDF

Preview

Summary

essay...

Description

If Animals Have Rights, Should Robots? Emalie Hayes Word Count: 273

In the New Yorker article "If Animals Have Rights, Should Robots?" Nathan Heller argues that humans find themselves torn by the moral status of animals at times giving them strong moral status and other times denying them of any moral status. For instance, the public outrage on the Harambe shooting was a big deal because of lack of human consideration for animals. Many activists found the killing of Harambe unjust due his intelligent and cognitive similarity to humans. These activists are challenged by those who believe that humans ability to subjective reasoning is what makes them unique. But there is a continued discussed on if humans have the moral duty to other beings especially those who share similar traits. Both justifications support omnorivism and are "forced to set limits of our species' more reach". Heller explores the concept that the world is run by robots and the question of whether robots have moral status becomes apparent. If animals are comparatively similar to humans and are given moral rights, doesn’t the world owe it to extend the same moral rights to robots. The mind of a robot is considered to be built by the human image and can potentially challenge humans, so why would it not be given moral status. Many humans when asked to harm the robot refused to do so, showing empathy and could sympathize with the robots. Furthermore though Heller writes that as a human race we take on the habits of the world around us and use the tools surrounding us. Harambe died due to this because he was born into a world of humans not apes.

Reference

Heller N. 2016. Nov.28. If animals have rights, should robots. The new yorker.Avaiable from: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/if-animals-have-rights-should-robots...