Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Animal rights philosophy arguments essay
Do animals deserve the same rights as humans
Animal rights philosophy arguments essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Animal rights philosophy arguments essay
Should animals have the same rights as humans? The answer is simply an opinion, but before someone decides whether or not animals have rights they must first take into consideration a few things. First, one must decide what the term “rights” is referring to: moral rights or legal rights. Secondly, one must determine what the term animal is referring to: are humans considered animals? Thirdly, one must ask are animals’ sentient beings: Can animals feel pain and suffer? The next element is to take into consideration is all of the beneficial and atrocious aspects of animal testing, and then decide if the beneficial aspects outweigh the atrocious aspects or vice-versa. The final step is to decide if there is a middle ground to the argument: Can animals have rights …show more content…
Rights possession simply means that their holders have certain important, basic interests that impose on their duties on others” (Animal Rights Without Liberation, 2). This theory is the most neutral, middle ground argument in the animal rights debate. Cochrane supports this theory by stating, “Contrary to the skeptics, rights can indeed be sensibly ascribed to animals. After all, it does not matter that animals themselves cannot respect or claim rights; all that matters is that they possess basic interests that ground certain duties on our part. Furthermore, and contrary to the proponents, animal rights do not require all animals to be set free from being used, owned, and exploited by human begins” (Animal Rights Without Liberation, 2). Detracting the arguments of both supporters and those who oppose animal rights and combining the two arguments together create the middle ground of the animal rights
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
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.
Each year, thousands of animals are euthanized thanks to animal testing. Several people may argue that scientist are putting the lives of animals in danger by testing on them, on the other hand, is animal lives valued over human lives? By showing emotion there may be some guilt for harming the lives of animals, although puzzling over the percentage of human lives stay saved from animal testing doing all the research worthwhile. Should animal testing be banned?
Recently, some philosophers began to take action on fighting for animal rights. One of them, philosopher Tom Regan, is well-known for his animal rights theories. In his book The Case for Animal Rights, Regan argues that animals should have their rights, and we should not allow speciesism to happen anymore. By using the term inherent value, which is referring to experiencing subject of a life, Regan starts his argument by saying that all of us, despite being human or non-human animals, have equal inherent value, which provides the basis for rights claims, yet inherent value and rights require equal respect. Thus, animals are deserving of equal respect. With this conclusion, he makes a movement to fight for the total
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.
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,
Animal testing is an immoral, heinous, atrocious act. One should never put an animal before his own life; we are all here on earth due to some strand of evolution or the other, making prejudice and other discriminations (man or not) obsolete and meaningless. Those who would think themselves above another creature are each failures in their own individual way. The rights of animals cannot be questioned, it is an inalienable fact that most do not understand, when given thought that is free of bias and the plague of arrogance, as Arthur Schopenhauer once said: “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.” In a society as unquestionably advanced as man, a society in which even the consumption of meat is an indulgence and in no way necessary, the duty of treating all life with anything more than a central nervous system is nothing less than a law.
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
The rights of Animals argument by John Feinberg is a very interesting argument as is pertains to the idea of if animals have rights or do not have rights. Feinberg argues his ultimate message which is that animals do have interests and we can’t prevent all harm, but we can take their interests into account and prevent willfully inflicted harm. He also asserts that principles of an enlightened conscience determine moral rights.
Animal testing is a controversial topic, with two main sides of the argument. The side opposing animal testing states it is unethical and inhumane that animals have a right to choose where and how they live instead of being subjected to experiments. The view is that all living organisms have a right of freedom; it is a right, not a privilege. The side for animal testing thinks that it should continue, without animal testing there would be fewer medical and scientific breakthroughs. This side states that the outcome is worth the investment of testing on animals.
In defense of this position, philosopher Tom Regan has argued that sentience should be the basis by which rights endowed (The Rights.). He argues that there are many humans who lack the ability to reason but still maintain their human rights, therefore our standards for rights are not based on reason but sentience which includes these humans and animals as well. Regan also states “Inherent value, then, belongs equally to those who are the experiencing subjects of a life,” supporting the claim that animal lives have value on their own (The Case for Animal Rights). The antithesis of this non-moral belief is that since animals do not have the capacity for reason, they do not have rights and are only valuable in the ways in which they are useful to humans.
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
A. A. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Most would not put animals in the same category as humans so giving them the same rights seems quite ridiculous; since humans are supposed to be seen as the alpha species. What is a more realistic term is to consider them our property, because we continue to use animal testing and think it is okay to harm these animals. In the end, animal testing and research is cruel and should be done away with. It is a proven fact that animals feel pain just like humans do. No animal deserves to have his or her life purpose be to give his or her life unknowingly for science. We must to put an end to this cruelty and torture because just like humans, animals are living beings. No matter how it is perceived, it is cruel and unusual punishment.
First of all, animal testing should be banned in order to protect the rights of animals. In other words, animals’ rights are infringed by experimenting on them. Animals and humans are similar in many ways. To begin with, they have similar levels of biological complexity. They both are aware that they exist and they both make conscious choices. Philosophy professor at North Carolina State University Tom Regan points out "Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment." (F. B. Orlans) Experimentation on an animal ...