“AN ANALYSIS OF THE PHILLIPINE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT”
The article “An Analysis of the Philippine Animal Welfare Act” by Ryan C. Urbano presents
analysis of Philippine Animal Welfare Act which deliberately state that certain animals produced for
commercial sale, used for breeding and such should receive a certain level of care and treatment. For
this reason, they are addressed and treated correctly according to their necessities. This paper
emphasizes the ethical presuppositions and issues of the Animal Welfare Act 1988 (AWA) of the
Philippines in terms of how animals are claimed their accorded moral status under such laws. The
author appears on presenting such provisions to provoke problems by the manner the paper is written.
The authors in line with Section 7, thereafter, the author come across that the natural habitat is
preserved apart from being for its own advantage but as well as for the living or for the habitation of
the animals which might cause of conflict towards people that may assert the quantity of the specified
habitat would be greater compared to the animals living on it – “land ethical holism”. In the proponents
view of J. Baird Callicot, the author believes that there is a conflict between animal protection
provisions and environmental protection provisions. He also said that it should be clarified if the
relative status of both wild animals and the environment is recognized. As the analysis progresses, it
becomes clear that the author is attempting to broaden the concept of animal welfare by implying that
does the law offers both domesticated and wild animals similar moral standing. A question goes such
as; if they do not have equal moral status, then what are the criteria for giving the higher morals status
to one over the other? The author then asks if so, if they equal moral status, how does one resolve
cases when their interests’ conflict with one another?
Mr. Urbano draws on information from journal publications and law journals in his article. The
author drew on the publications of academics to substantiate his analysis. For instance, ‘the
interspecific principle’ where Warren refers to a significant text and discusses its moral significance.
Without to mention, the data included in the article serves as evidence as well as basis for exposing
and confirming the author's points. He discusses a variety of ideas regarding the moral status of
animals and the possible moral view or views implied in AWA. Moreover, the author further supports
his analyzation held by Kant’s utilitarian’s view and Singer’s pave the way on killing the animals for
food became questionable- the author then extends these exemptions and the then author then include
Rawls’s notion of ‘reflection equilibrium’ method that may help to resolve the issues per discussed in
exemptions.
Mr. Urbano began to explore his argument by defining what the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
is and whether or not it grants domesticated and wild animals similar in moral standing. In animal
context, considering the concept of “mixed communities”, it may view that domesticated animals are
high moral since they were useful in mixed communities and affectionate to human beings (Singer)
however, it can be argued, for wild animals realize their purposes and all animals are sentient. The
author then includes the anti-cruelty of animals, whether it is intentional or unintentional, it is
forbidden. The author then asks to deepen on why we are forbidden to hurt the animals. Presenting
two perspectives; utilitarian view where animals are sentient and Kant’s view that animals have no
moral status for, they are not the agents of morality. The author explicitly rebutted by presenting Tom
Regan’ claims that differences amongst entities shouldn't be used to assign moral standing towards
them. Apart from that, if and anti-cruelty is followed, whether it may domesticated or wild, part of the
Filipino’s delicacy or not, it shouldn’t be killed. However, the considered view of killings of the ‘noneveryday Filipino’s diet’ animals is illegal if and only if; first, they were slaughtered by tribes for
religious ritual purposes in accordance of religious freedom- “The Transitivity of Respect Principle”.
Second, the specific animal has been hit by an irredeemable disease certified by a veterinarian. Third,
euthanasia towards animals that can protect the others from the disease and not to prolong the
sufferings. Fourth, protect a human person's life. Fifth, animal population control. Sixth, a specific
animal died from certified research or experiments and lastly, killing identical ground in the latter by
certified veterinarian. Even so, there still unsolved issues with different convictions of experiences
and Rawls’s notion of reflective equilibrium are an important method to cure this in full attainment of
agreement. By that, Committee of Animal Welfare (CAW) is responsible for making rules and
regulations, create public consultations of problems regarding the animal welfare.
Depending on one's moral stance or theory, the concept of the preceding animal welfare
analysis might be understood in a variety of ways. Furthermore, the Animal Welfare Act does not go
into detail about a specific animal welfare moral standing, which leads to the difficulties raised in the
study. As a result, the study proposes the concept of animal moral standing. The Animal Welfare Act
is responsible for Filipinos' treatment of animals and promotes animal welfare, which if not clearly
upheld could have a big effect on the Committee on Animal Welfare and Filipinos.
Optional: (You can gain additional points by choosing one of the three options.)
I.
The aspect/s of the reading that everyone needs to know. Explain why. (200 words)
The aspect of the reading that everyone needs to know is that whether the animal’s is in mixed
communities nor in the wild, both of them have their moral worth. This simply implies that even if
these domesticated animals impart a large contribution in our physiological needs -food and suchhence, we’re taking care of them as reciprocity on providing their foods and shelter simply because
that is our moral obligations. Apart from that, we should still not abase animals in the wild. Not
because they were literally playing a vital role, for instance, in seed diffusion, ensuring the
sustainability of different species of plants, which in turn serves as our form of food or medicine but
because by the fact that these wild animals are trying to find their purpose of existence, prospering in
the wild, surviving the fittest in the wild is enough for us to respect living things like them. Just like
human beings, all animals have emotion too where they could also feel unbearable pain. Human
beings must not invalidate on what kind of animal, no matter what it cost to humanity. Therefore, I
could say that animals in mixed communities or in wild, they are morally worth it.