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 …show more content…
Issues like the use of furs, feathers, and leather in fashion. This is one of the biggest controversies in the case of fur “animal activists claim that there are synthetic materials that are as warm as fur.” (Sherry 72). Many species like tigers and leopards are being driven extinct for their unique furs. The problem with feathers which are typically found in down mattresses and jackets. The process is particularly inhumane because the feather are plucked from live geese, ducks, and swans. Lastly and possibly the worst is the leather industry. Tanning is a “chemical treatment that changes the structure of the skin” of various species mostly cattle. By not touching on the reasons why animal rights are important makes the argument much less credible; since it does not prove to the reader why animal rights are important rather rely that the general public has a knowledge of all the major controversies. The essay is written more like a story which I find does not enhance the argument of the essay rather I think that the style detracts from the argument. The story telling does not propose a thoughtful argument because while the anecdotes are relevant they do not enhance the argument that peace between humans and animals is beneficial to both …show more content…
One example is cock fighting. Cock fighting is when roosters are trained to fight each other in rings often with metal spurs are attached their legs. An amendment was made in 1976 that makes it illegal “for any person to knowingly sponser or exhibit an animal in any animal fighting venture” (Beauchamp, Orlans, Dresser, Morton, Gluck 98). However “[t]hese amendments did not make breeding, raising and training of game fowl illegal” ( Beauchamp, Orlans, Dresser, Morton, Gluck 98). The problem with this is that without these important laws being enforced is cock fighting can still go on with little deterence from the government. Another popular variety of entertainment is the circus. Critics often “claim that animals are improperly trained… [and] are inherently unsuitable for animals” ( Beauchamp, Orlans, Dresser, Morton, Gluck 122). Not to mention numerous claims of inhumane treatment of the animals. One of the biggest targets for these critiques are the Ringling Bros. They state that “in the over 30 years of current ownership, Ringling Bros. has never been found in violation of the AWA… However, records from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service… [the] Ringling Bros. was issued an official warning for ‘[failure] to use an appropriate method of euthanasia.’ More specifically a handler fired five shotgun shells into a tiger” ( Beauchamp, Orlans, Dresser, Morton, Gluck
"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?
In his Meditations, Rene Descartes argues that animals are purely physical entities, having no mental or spiritual substance. Thus, Descartes concludes, animals can’t reason, think, feel pain or suffer. Animals, are mere machines with no consciousness. Use the Internet to explore the issue of animal rights. Investigate the legacy left by Rene Descartes concerning the moral status of animals.
Animal rights can defined as the idea that some, or all non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Animal rights can help protect the animals who experience research and testing that could be fatal towards them. The idea of animal rights protects too the use of dogs for fighting and baiting. Finally, animal rights affects the farms across america, limiting what animals can be slaughtered. The bottom line is, there is too much being done to these animals that most do not know about.
animals. If they keep the animals, then the animal will be treated as a pet or
In the 1970s the question of animal rights became a major social issue that more people started to take notice and action in. This discovery of the cruelty these animals go through, lead animal cruelty to become a serious issue in our world today. To understand how animals could be treated so unjustly one would need to know that many believed that animals could not feel pain. However, animals can feel pain just like humans can and using them for experimentation causes them extreme pain. “Each year, more than 100 million animals are killed in the U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics” (Peta 1). With countries having inadequate regulations to protect animal’s rights the chances of that number dropping are slim to none.
For decades, mankind has used animals to progress efficiently in scientific research. Animal testing is important for medical science and other beneficial experiments. Many citizens criticize scientists for testing on animals for unnecessary means other than medical research. Many of today’s current vaccines and disease treatments would have been delayed without the use of animals. People across the globe have been saved through organ transplants by persistent research on animals. Many material products and medical accomplishments people take for granted wouldn’t have been possible without animal testing.
Many people feel that animals have no rights and are here solely for our use.
After reading “Do Animals Have Rights?” by Carl Cohen, the central argument of the article is that rights entail obligations. Cohen examines the syllogism that all trees are plants but does not follow the same that all plants are trees. Cohen explains the syllogism through the example of hosts in a restaurant. They have obligation to be cordial to their guests, but the guest has not the right to demand cordiality. Cohen explains using animals, for example his dog has no right to daily exercise and veterinary care, but he does have the obligation to provide those things for her. Cohen states that animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in, and has force within, a human moral world. Humans must deal with rats-all too frequently in some parts of the world-and must be moral in their dealing with them; but a rat can no more be said to have rights than a table can be said to have ambition.
Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.
A. A. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Animals will have rights when they have the means to enforce them. They don't have the ability to reason as humans do. The human race has such a vast understanding of the necessities for all of the different species of animals to exist. Humans are far superior to any other animal because they are so advanced in technology. One advantage of advanced technology is, humans can store information as reference material. With all of this reference material humans can look back at previous mistakes so they don't do the same thing again. With this knowledge, humans can see and predict outcomes before a choice is made. Humans have the knowledge to enforce their rights, something no other animal has.
There was a combination of different literature found that easily pertains to the issue addressed in this paper. This broadly classified literature includes the history and background of PETA’s organization, an analysis of the use of celebrity icons in the anti-fur campaign and the different perspectives and criticism depicted in their messages.
Animals have their own rights as do to humans and we should respect that and give them the same respect we give each other. Animals deserve to be given those same basic rights as humans. All humans are considered equal and ethical principles and legal statutes should protect the rights of animals to live according to their own nature and remain free from exploitation. This paper is going to argue that animals deserve to have the same rights as humans and therefore, we don’t have the right to kill or harm them in any way. The premises are the following: animals are living things thus they are valuable sentient beings, animals have feeling just like humans, and animals feel pain therefore animal suffering is wrong. 2 sources I will be using for my research are “The Fight for Animal Rights” by Jamie Aronson, an article that presents an argument in favour of animal rights. It also discusses the counter argument – opponents of animal rights argue that animals have less value than humans, and as a result, are undeserving of rights. Also I will be using “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer. This book shows many aspects; that all animals are equal is the first argument or why the ethical principle on which human equality rests requires us to extend equal consideration to animals too.
It is the notion of our time that non-human animals exist for the advancement of the human species. In whatever field -- cookery, fashion, blood-sports -- it is held that we can only be concerned with animals as far as human interests exist. There may be some sympathy for those animals, as to limit practices which cause excruciating suffering, but those may only be limited if they are brought to public light, and if legislators receive enough pressure from the public to change.