Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Short debate on animal rights
Discussion about animal rights
Short debate on animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Short debate on animal rights
The idea of rights to the animals was always debatable has now become more controversial. The substantial influence of using the animals for food and research has sparked the controversy over potential impact of this trend in recent years. It can be said that use of animals as a source of diet and for research is essential part. However, this kind of attitude of human beings towards animals results in pain and decrease number of animal species on the earth. This essay will elaborate both the view points and thus will lead to a logical conclusion.
At the outset there are numerous reasons to endure the statement of one side that the use of animals as source of food and for research is vital. But the most conspicuous one lies in the fact is for
human survival. Increasing number population eventually, demanding the food and in the same manner animals needed for research to find out the cause for the diseases that the human is suffering from in addition treatment. Moreover animals are also used for manufacturing of medications that enhance the life span of human being suffering from a disease. On the other hand, there are innumerable factors to support the freedom and rights of animals. but the most desirable one lie in the fact is life of animals. To elaborate just like human being animals do have life and family indeed of emotion. Moreover they can sense the pain of feel the suffering. In consideration to this point killing life of animals for the sack of human survival and wellbeing con not be considered under the humanitarian grounds. To recapitulate, limited use of animals is considerable but not as the humans wish.
The information that animals have provided scientists over the past decades has changed society, and is still changing society for the better. Millions of lives have been saved with the use of animal testing and many more will be saved with continued research. However, there are many who dismiss this monumental achievement completely and oppose the use of animals in laboratory research. Though many find this practice to be
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
Animals are used as a part of experimentations in order to accomplish new openings. A few individuals think that it is satisfactory, while others contend that it is not moral to sacrifice animals for science. Estimated, that fifty to one hundred million of animals are used for tests in the world. Despite the significance of experiments, the quantity of animals and purpose of research are not under any control. Animals testing should be banned under a few circumstances; we can enhance the situation by using alternative ways such as replacement, reduction, and refinement according to International Society for Applied Ethology.
“Animals and Research Part 4: Ethics of using animals in research.” Editorial. Seattle Post-Intelligencer 20 Apr. 2000 <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/anml4.shtml>.
In this argumentative essay written by Dr. Ron Kline a pediatrician who wrote his essay titled “A Scientist: I am the enemy”. The article gives an insight on how animal research has helped many people and shine a light on the benefits of animal research. Ron Kline is the director of bone marrow transplants at the University of Louisville. Furthermore, the essay explains his thoughts and his own reasons for his love of medical research. In addition, the essay include the opposing side of the argument which has a lot feedback from activist groups that think that animal research is horrible.
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
Lastly, there is refinement where researchers need to filter their animal use for their experiments. Another point of agreement is the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act puts restrictions on experimenting, transporting, and researching on animals. “The intent of congress in passing this act... ... middle of paper ... ...
For centuries scientists have used animals to study the causes of diseases; to test drugs, vaccines and surgical techniques; and to evaluate the safety of chemicals used in pesticides, cosmetics and other products. However, many scientists amongst animal- right activists forbid the use of animals in scientific research regardless how many illnesses are eliminated through the use of animals in scientific research. Amongst animal right activists, David Suzuki also raises concerns towards animal experimentation. In his article, The Pain of Animals, Suzuki argues that humans have no right to exploit animals because--much like humans--animals also experience pain. In contrast to Suzuki, Haldane, in his article, Some Enemies of Science, argues because animals are very similar to humans, scientists have no choice but to use animals in scientific experiments. Both authors greatly contrast their opinions towards animal experimentation; however Haldane has a more explanatory approach towards animal experimentation. He argues animal experimentation should be acceptable because other forms of animal exploitation are acceptable in society. Secondly, unlike other forms of exploitation which seek pleasure in killing animals such as leisure sport, scientists, most likely do not harm animals; if pain is intended on an animal it is strictly for the purpose of scientific advancement. Thirdly, although, animal experimentation may cause some extinction, it is only one of many other causes of extinction, if other causes are not condemned; then neither should animal experiment...
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.
"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.
It’s dark, quiet, and you’re all by yourself. You whine and yell for help but nobody seems to hear you. The people you thought were your family abandoned you, left you all alone in a small confined cage. There is no place to use the bathroom, other than where you stand. The awful stench of your feces grows worse and worse each second. The only food they left you with, you ate in the first day. Now the only thing keeping you alive is your desperation to eat and drink your own waste and the will to survive. You are a dog left to die by your owners, with the thought that you are lower than humans and have no real importance or worth. This is an example of how some animals are treated and it’s not just happening at that trash house on everyone’s block.
The deployment of animals for medical research has brought heated debates from both the proponents and opponents each holding to their views in a tight manner. Those who are in support of animal research argue that it has been constituting a vital element in the advancement of medical sciences throughout the world providing insights to various diseases, which have helped in the discovery and development of various medicines that have brought an improvement in the qualify of living of people. Such discoveries have gone so deep that but for them many would have died a premature death because no cure would have been found for the diseases that they were otherwise suffering. On the other hand, animal lovers and animal right extremists hold to the view that animal experimentation is not only necessary but also Cruel. Human kind is subjecting them to such cruelties because they are helpless and even assuming such experiments do bring in benefits, the inhuman treatment meted out to them is simply not worth such benefits. They would like measures, including enactment of legislations to put an end to using animals by the name of research. This paper takes the view there are merits in either of the arguments and takes the stand a balanced approach needs to be taken on the issue so that both the medical science does not suffer, and the animal lovers are pacified, even if not totally satisfied. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The next section discusses both the sides by taking account the view of scholars and practitioners and the subsequent section concludes the paper by drawing vital points from the previous section to justify the stand taken in this paper....
Every year, millions of animals experience painful, suffering and death due to results of scientific research as the effects of drugs, medical procedures, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. Basically, animal experimentation has played a dominant role in leading with new findings and human advantages. Animal research has had a main function in many scientific and medical advances in the past decade and is helping in the understanding of several diseases. While most people believe than animal testing is necessary, others are worried about the excessive suffering of this innocent’s creatures. The balance between the rights of animals and their use in medical research is a delicate issue with huge societal assumptions. Nowadays people are trying to understand and take in consideration these social implications based in animals rights. Even though, many people tend to disregard animals that have suffered permanent damage during experimentation time. Many people try to misunderstand the nature of life that animals just have, and are unable to consider the actual laboratory procedures and techniques that these creatures tend to be submitted. Animal experimentation must be excluded because it is an inhumane way of treat animals, it is unethical, and exist safer ways to test products without painful test.
Towards animal welfare comes the aspect of animal cruelty. Animal cruelty is a fairly recent subject that has affected society. Animal cruelty has now shown comparisons through human abused households. The concern is recent because as society changes humans attitudes change which now affects towards animals. Animal welfare is used to help animal cruelty, because decreasing the violence between animals and humans can help the regulations of animal welfare. Research and testing have become more prominent and a strong concern to the public on the treatment on animals. Many activists today are trying to change the view people see toward the animal they have as a companion. Ethical issues are the many concerns about animals and the question always asked is,”who has the right to control the animal?”
In this essay I will outline and defend the argument for complete abolition of the use of animals in biomedical research. I will ultimately agree with Tom Regan’s claim that “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources.” I will describe several important objections to Regan’s claim. However, I will show that none of these objections overcomes his central argument.