Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The case for animal rights brief summary
Animal rights are just as important as human rights
Do animals have the same rights as humans
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The case for animal rights brief summary
Animal Rights Animal rights have unequivocally been a major concern amongst humans for some time now. Animal rights are based on the notion that non-human animals should be allowed to live freely: free from abuse and suffering, as humans are. The extreme issue amongst humans is whether or not non-human animals have the capacity for rationality to deserve such equal consideration. When examining the issue of animal rights, one may have come to question one’s psyche on whether or not animal rights are ethical. According to Aristotelian ethics, the highest goal in life is happiness. This happiness is often misinterpreted though, as most people think of happiness as a physical pleasure or honor, but this is only because they have a flawed view of the good life. Those who tend to share this viewpoint do not understand true happiness because people are generally deficient in virtue. Aristotle has a proactive conception of the good life: happiness waits only for those who go out and seize it. Happiness, according to Aristotle, is also a public affair, not a private one, so with whom we share this happiness with is of great significance. “... every substance not only possess a form; one could say it is also possessed by a form, for it naturally strives to become a perfect specimen of its kind. Every substance seeks to actualize what it is potentially” (Tarnas p.58). Aristotle also says that humans have a telos, an end or purpose, which is our goal to achieve. This telos is based on our distinct human capacity for rational thought. He also argued that the body & mind are inseparable; so when the body dies, the soul also ceases to exist. Aristotle did not believe in animal rights however, as in Politics, he claimed that nature made all an... ... middle of paper ... ... controversial conclusion, Wise had gone far beyond what any other animal rights debate had touched on, by demanding that non-human animals should have equal rights as if they were a legal person. It can be said that animal rights is somewhat Aristotelian in inspiration, where an animal has a telos, an end or purpose that the animal must carry out. The animal may have a number of desires and needs that could lead to the realization of its telos requirements. It would not be in mankind’s best interest to derail another being’s telos, as this leads to an extreme moral dilemma. The fact that animals are alive, can feel pain, and have their own interests should give animals a protected right to life. If a human should choose to take such life, they should be able to prove that their right to live is morally superior to that of any animal whose life they decide to take.
"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
...nimal rights yet I do question myself where to draw the line. I do not condone violence or harm against animals, yet I shudder at the thought of a mice plague and feel saddened by the extinction of our native animals by ‘feral’ or pest species. Is it right to kill one species to save another? I am appalled by the idea of ‘circus’ animals yet I will attend the horse races every summer for my entertainment. I think Tom Regan’s argument and reasoning for animal rights was extremely effective at making whoever is reading the essay question his or her own moral standards. Reading the essay made me delve into my own beliefs, morals and values which I think is incredibly important. To form new attitudes as a society it is important we start questioning how we view the lives of others, do we see animals as a resource to be exploited or as equals with rights just like we do?
Many people would agree that animals deserve rights some may even say the same as humans.In the essay "An Animal Welfare and Conservation: An Essential Connection", Paul Waldou reflects on his own experiences an animal law professor. The author asks the question "what is the relevance of 'animal rights ' to the rich set of concerns we call out with words like 'environmental, ' 'conservation ' and 'ecological '?" (Waldau 174). He then explains through personal anecdotes and personal reflections the answer to this question. It is the authors personal opinion that " 'animal rights... is part of a peace-constituted path essential to human health" (Waldau 174). In my opinion animals should have the same rights as humans because all creatures
Aristotle begins his ethical account by saying that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and every choice, is thought to aim for some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (line 1094a1). Though some things might produce higher good than others, Aristotle looks for the highest good, which he says we must “desire for its own sake” and our actions are not decided on some other goal beyond this good itself (line 1094a20-25).[1] This highest good is then realized to be happiness (line 1095a16-20).
The animal rights movement is trying to get people to see exactly how animals have been treated. Most people see animal cruelty as “…unspeakable acts perpetrated by warped individuals mostly against dogs, cats, birds, and sometimes horses” (Munro, 512). Once seeing how countless animals have been treated, numerous people across the world are joining the cause to help these poor “nonhuman animals”. One reason that supports that animals deserve rights is that “non-human mammals over a year of age have mental capacities for memory, a sense of future, emotion, and self-awareness to a certain extent” (Dog˘an, 474). With this reasoning, animals have enough mental capacity to be considered subjects of life, and therefore deserve rights to support this thesis. Another reason states that “rights are defined in terms of capability of having interests” (Dog˘an, 481). Animals show an interest in living. As stated, “[a]nimals have a natural motive to live…[e]very day, they practice caution and care necessary to protect themselves. Their bodies are likewise structured for survival” (Dog˘an,
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
Animals have been treat as if they are less equal in the moral sense. Over the recent years, the public has been more aware of the animal liberation movement. This movement opposes factory farms and animal experimentation; the movement demands animal equality. The animal liberation movement demands for the people to expand their moral capabilities, to recognize that animals should be treated as equals. However, it is hard for one to recognize that the moral inequality until it is forcibly pointed out to them. Peter Singer, author of “Animal Liberation,” has written about various ethical issues; widely known for his compassion and work on animal welfare. According, to Singer animals should not be held under immoral treatment by humans.
Whether or not animals should have rights has been an ongoing ethical debate in the philosophical community. Some argue that humans have higher intellectual capabilities and thus have more worth, while others say that every living being has equal inherent worth, but both arguments play a part concerning environmental issues.
Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia. Charlton is also a law professor at Rutgers University and she is the co-founder of the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic. In this article Francione and Charlton mainly focus on persuading people to believe in animal rights but only focus on one right, the right of animals not to be property. The article is written in a well-supported manner with a lot of details and examples backing it up, but a few counter-arguments can be made against some of their arguments.
Animal rights pertain to the right to live untampered with and free. This is not to be confused with believing animals are of an equal status with humans; however, they do deserve to be given the luxury to live freely as humans do. Killing and experimenting on animals by taking their fur for clothing, flesh for food, and lives for entertainment or research strips the animal of its dignity and happiness. To refute the popular belief that animals do not feel and understand in the way a human does, suffering is a universal feeling that all living creatures feel. Laws put in place to protect animals are only significant for protecting from unnecessary uses. Therefore, as long as a situation is presented the plan may be carried out. Animals are
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
The debate of whether animal rights are more important than human rights is one that people have argued mercilessly. Some people think all animals are equal. To understand this, humans must be considered animals. Humans are far more civilized than any animal, they have the power, along with understanding to control many types of sickness and disease. This understanding that humans have, keeps them at the top of the food chain.
Animal Cruelty has many forms, many reasons and most importantly many victims. It is a growing problem in today’s society. Many people may wonder why people abuse animals. The thought is simple, however the answer is a little more complex, there are three main types of animal cruelty. The three reasons are as follows: unintentional, intentional, and cruel intentions. I will discuss each one in more detail.
To conclude this paper then, after reviewing the reasons for being opposed to assigning rights to non-human animals I am still faithfully for the idea. There is no justification for the barbaric and insensitive ways to which we have been treating the non-human animals with over the decades. As I stated before, they are living creatures just as we are, they have families, emotions and struggles of their own without the ones we inflict on them. So then where does this leave us? Of course it is a complicated mater, but none the less non-human animals should be protected with rights against them being used as machines, for food, for their skins, their wool, and all cases in which they are being abused.
Cavalieri , Paola. The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.