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.
The biocentric worldview, which is life centered, focuses on the importance of all living things and considers all living things to have intrinsic value. I will be using Peter Singer’s ideas as the main focus explaining that animals share equal moral status with human beings and that therefore is unethical for people to kill and eat them. In “All Animals are Equal” by Peter Singer recognizes that there are differences between humans and other species. As he ...
... middle of paper ...
...sounds for many of us. Like I’ve argued above, I feel it is important to practice and encourage vegetarianism for ethical, ecological, and healing reasons but not being forced to do so. Otherwise it’s considered to be unethical and unhealing. I reason for biocentric worldview to be more just than the dominant worldview, because it seems that their reasoning is much more even-handed as it’s not right for humans to cause needless pain and suffering on the animal’s part though humans are central.
Bibliography
Aronson, Jamie "Point: The Fight for Animal Rights." Points of View: Animal Rights (2007): 5.
Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 7 Apr. 2010.
Getman, Liz. “Ethics: Food and Animal Rights.” ITHACA. Ed. 7 Apr. 2010
< http://www.ithaca.edu/icview/2999/>
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York, NY: The New York Review of Books, 1975.
"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.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
As I have progressed through this class, my already strong interest in animal ethics has grown substantially. The animal narratives that we have read for this course and their discussion have prompted me to think more deeply about mankind’s treatment of our fellow animals, including how my actions impact Earth’s countless other creatures. It is all too easy to separate one’s ethical perspective and personal philosophy from one’s actions, and so after coming to the conclusion that meat was not something that was worth killing for to me, I became a vegetarian. The trigger for this change (one that I had attempted before, I might add) was in the many stories of animal narratives and their inseparable discussion of the morality in how we treat animals. I will discuss the messages and lessons that the readings have presented on animal ethics, particularly in The Island of Doctor Moreau, The Dead Body and the Living Brain, Rachel in Love, My Friend the Pig, and It Was a Different Day When They Killed the Pig. These stories are particularly relevant to the topic of animal ethics and what constitutes moral treatment of animals, each carrying important lessons on different facets the vast subject of animal ethics.
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.
animals. If they keep the animals, then the animal will be treated as a pet or
The Case for Animal Rights. Routledge, London-New York, 1988. Regan T. The Struggle for Animal Rights. International Society for Animal Rights.
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.
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.
Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:
A. A. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
The abuse that animals endure at human hands is heartbreaking, sickening, and infuriating. Animals are just as delicate as humans, so why not abuse us too? Animal lives should be just important as ours. No animals should be killed or abused for testing, entertaining, clothing, or hoarding. Every year, millions of animals are being killed and torture for testing.
Animals can be a man's best friend; however, they can also be ones worst enemy after passing certain boundaries. Peter Singer who wrote Animal Liberation gave valid points in my opinion because animals do have a right to live and we should give them their space. Humans take everything for granted and never seem to learn until it too late. Today slaughterhouses are abusing animals in disturbing ways which has to change. I will agree with Singers concepts on animals because they have a right to live a peaceful life like humans; they have a life ahead of them once they are born. Singer argues that animals should have their interests considered throughout their lives. Singer wants to eliminate speciesism from our thoughts which is, a human discriminatory belief that all other animals are not as good as them therefore they do not have rights and we could do what we want to them. We should not be the only types of "animals" in this earth who has a set of rights we should abide.
The animal rights movement has generated major controversy over the years and has proven to be an ongoing battle for animal activists. In a search for non-academic texts which address the issue of animal rights, I came across the news article If Animals Have Rights, Should Robots? and a blog post Tilikum has Died, But There’s Still Much We Can Do to Save Other Orcas. These two texts discuss the same topic, but are considered two completely different genres. Most people are aware of, and are able to distinguish the differences between a news article and a blog because these assigned genres are something everyone has come across at least once in their life.
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.
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.