Legal and moral rights should always be extended to non-human species, otherwise what would separate us from the animals? Legal rights are the rights that are granted by law and enforceable via court systems, such as the legal right to life that prevents us from killing people on a whim (Gilbert, 2012). Although legal protection does not always extend to animals globally, every state in the United States have laws prohibiting the inhumane treatment of animals in order to protect their well-being, regardless if they are domesticated or not (Stray Pet Advocacy, 2010). Even if an individual is not an animal lover, there are several benefits to supporting legal rights for all species. The most important reason would be to maintain the balance of the natural ecosystem. If we as a people were to completely eliminate a natural predator, such as the wolf, then the entire balance would shift and issues such as overproduction of the natural prey of the wolf would occur and eat more foliage than the environment …show more content…
Our moral sense is the knowledge or awareness of moral implications of our interactions with others, and is often tied to emotions (Gilbert, 2012). An example of this being, when a child does something wrong and then feels bad about it, or in contrast, does something right and is gleeful. All individuals who have a moral compass knows that is wrong to inflict pain on a living being, some just choose to do so anyway, unfortunately. Since most animals experience the ranges of emotion that humans do, we should respect them to at least a basic extent. Considering that there are very few individuals who believe that humans do not have moral obligations towards animals (Garner, 2002), there is no logical reasoning to disallow basic moral and legal rights to
Philosophers and scholars have long debated the human moral and ethical obligations towards non-human animals. The opposing paradigms of animal ethics a...
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.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”(Arthur Schopenhauer)
Fate’s Game In Ralph Ellison's short story "King of the Bingo Game," the use of language, tone, and mood captures the protagonist's experience, reflecting the idea that while we may throw dice, fate determines how they fall. Set around the era of the Great Depression, Ellison's story goes into the mind of the protagonist; a distressed man dealing with the harsh realities of poverty, oppression, and his internal conflicts. He is in a tough spot, dealing with poverty and discrimination. The way Ellison writes makes the readers feel for the character; the ups and downs, the struggles, and the moments of hope. The language Ellison uses paints a picture of the character's tough life.
Animal Liberation Why is it that we as a society condemn the actions of a man against a man, but very rarely a man against an animal? I think this question must be understood if we are ever to change the rights animals have. As of yet, I don't believe animals have any actual rights. Rather, humans have rights that involve animals. If we are to truly allow animals to have rights the same or similar to humans, then we must first define what it is that makes us feel as if they are entitled to rights.
"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.
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.
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A
... 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.
Being human indicates the feeling of pain, pleasure, fear, and love; if animals can display these emotions, are they not human? The unethical treatment of animals is largely due to the fact that we as humans do not believe animals are sentient (capable of feeling pain or pleasure). Would it not be feeling pleasure when a kitten purrs when being stroked? How about when you beat a dog and they howl out; is that not pain?
Animals deserve fair and ethical treatment, however not necessarily equally. Non-human animals and humans are not one in the same, there is no way we will ever be defined and put in the same category. Humans have reference levels, the ability to reason and think logically. We have evolved to the point where we can study, contain, and determine the outcome of basically any animal on Earth, now it’s up to us to ensure they are treated fairly.
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.
Animals DO have feelings. They may not be able to talk and tell us where it hurts, but they do feel pain, just like humans. There are laws to protect animals, just like humans. I do not feel as though the laws are strong enough, nor are they enforced the way they should.
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 world. Whether we choose to accept it or not, animals should have rights just like we do because they deserve them. They should have a right to live until they die and not to be killed, they should have a right to be treated with care and respect, and they should have a right not to end up as some people’s dinner in a cruel way. Non human animals can feel happy, pain, sadness, fear, love and even anger and so just because we have the power to completely dominate them does not give us a right not to accord them their rights, they deserve them. We are all living things, we all have fear and love, we all breath and so all of us should have rights.