Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against animal rights
Arguments against animal rights
Short note on animals rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“Animals with rights must be treated as ends in themselves, they should not be treated by others as means to achieve their ends.” (Francione) An idea opposing to Immanuel Kant’s beliefs. Animals are apart of the moral community, their intrinsic worth justifies this, and causes for certain rights to be established to uphold their worth within the community. To not respect the welfare of nonhuman animals, and to provide special treatment for humans, goes against Peter Singer’s ideas for a harmonious community, and instead showcases speciesism. The established thought that has been shown through the ages that certain races are more superb than others is the continuous downfall of nations and inhibits progression.
There is much disagreement as to whether non-human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights. There is less disagreement though when it comes to agreeing on the overall thoughts humanity has of allowing animals to have rights. This view in which humans have for animals more than likely stems from the Bible. The idea was established through St Augustine’s teachings, "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their [animals'] life and their death are subject to our use." St Thomas Aquinas taught that the universe was constructed as a hierarchy in which beings at a lower level were there to serve those above them. Human beings we’re above animals in this hierarchy they were entitled to use animals in any way they wanted. With such jurisdiction, humans’ have created their moral community and have excluded animals from it. Francione stated;
“Our inclination to disregard the moral worth of other animals must be examined in light of the principle of utility and the ideal of equality rather than our particular ...
... middle of paper ...
...h other and use and understand moral concepts and rules,” (Francione) the members of this community respect each other’s autonomy. Remembering that we are a moral community on our own but accepting and agreeing that animals have a place within it will allow for a more utopian world and provide humans with a better understanding of something besides our own well being.
Works Cited
Boss, J. A. (2014). Ethics for Life (Sixth ed., pp. 252-255). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Francione, G. L. (2012). Moral Concern, Moral Impulse, and Logical Argument in Animal Rights Advocacy. In Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. Retrieved November 29, 2013, from http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/moral-concern-moral-impulse-and- logical-argument-in-animal-rights-advocacy/#.UpkCtKUsZBU
Rachels, J. (2008). Doing Ethics (pp. 435-443). Retrieved November 29, 2013
Men have thought themselves to be the superior species for a long time, but Peter Singer brings a new perspective on the topic in his essay entitled Speciesism and Moral Status. Singer’s new way of thinking of it states that determining morals status requires the comparison between the cognitive abilities of humans and nonhumans. The main points he focusses on in his essay are cognitive capacities between animals and humans with severe mental retardation, religion affecting human’s beliefs of superiority, and finally the ability to suffer and how similar humans and nonhumans are.
...nger states “Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests”. Singer argues that, as there is no justification for unequal treatment of human beings based on capacity, it is also unjustifiable to treat human and non-human animals differently based on their capacities.
Throughout history, societies have been faced with many social issues affecting their citizens. Martin Luther King Jr, a civil rights leader for African Americans, was an advocate for the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that fought to undo the injustices African Americans endure by American society in the 1960s. Martin expressed his disgust with the social inequality among citizens when saying “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (PETA). Taking the prominent leader’s words into consideration, we should progress as a society by participating in the animal rights movement that strives to extend the same compassion, felt by Martin Luther King Jr, to all living things (PETA). Popular criticisms report that animals are inferior to humans because they are a source of food, but I will argue that they are victims of social injustice. Validity for my animal rights argument will come from individual and organizational expert accounts and by Bioethicist Peter Singer, Author Francis Fukuyama, New York Time’s Mark Bittman and also Animal Rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Animal Equality, to help prove my argument. Animals are silent victims who are loudly crying out for someone to stand up for their rights; rights that can no longer be disregarded by being overlooked. It is my belief that animals should be respected, and afforded ethical and human treatment by society instead of being looked at as a source of food. In a society where animals have no voice, it is everyone’s civic duty to participate in the animal rights movement and acknowledge animals as living beings, which...
Many philosophers including Tom Regan and Mary Anne Warren disagree with Carl Cohen and say that animals do have rights. According to Warren’s weak animal rights position, morality and reason are maximized where no sentient creatures cane be killed without good reason. Tom Regan’s strong animal rights policy is comparatively unreasonable because it advocates for halting all killing because every sentient being has value. Prior to coming to the conclusion that animals do have rights, Regan dispelled three wrong routes on coming to this conclusion. Animals should have the opportunity to pursue their satisfactions, not be deliberately harmed, and not killed without a good enough reason. In this paper I will argue that animals do have some rights according to Warren’s weak animal rights position.
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.
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
animals. If they keep the animals, then the animal will be treated as a pet or
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.
Following my first pet, I had rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, I developed a special love for animals. On my birthday last year, me and my friends went to celebrate at a friend’s house, she had three dogs, years of dealing with dogs I understand how they feel, so they were playing with me for a long time, as I jumped into the swimming pool they jumped too, they thought I was drowning; I was someone they just met, and they already developed a bond, so they knew I was a friend. In Cape Verde the people who have animals as means of food, leave their animals wondering around looking for their own means or food, especially goats and cows, consequently contributing to disorder and possible arising diseases. Dogs and cats are not usually allowed inside the house, so they are let outside. Donkeys are also used as means of transportation in certain rural areas, and sometimes they are overloaded and beaten to continue. Thus, the citizens view animals as propriety, as I interviewed some Cape Verdeans, they do not understand the importance of animal rights, they find it rather meaningless, that’s the kind of mentality they were thought
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.
"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.
Doesn’t it kill you to see a movie and see an animal get killed or just hurt in it? Good thing that’s all special effects. Back in the day, around 1966, movies didn’t always use special effects. Khartoum, a movie based on a holy war in the Sudan desert, directed by Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, used horses a great deal, but did not use the special effects in order to not hurt the animals. Many horses died in the making of this movie, as well as others, even including a major hit, Ben-Hur. Today, there are many activist groups that fight for and about the unfair treatment and protection for animals in everyday life. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of these groups. PETA was founded in 1980, and since then has been working on getting the point across to the public that animals “are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.” (PETA: Official Page). PETA also focuses on educating policymakers and the public about the abuse of animals and making it known that animals deserve the right to be treated with respect.
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
Animals should be considered to have right to life, and freedom from suffering. Their living environments and their territories should be respected. They should be considered as equal creatures on this earth with equal rights. In those fundamental ways they should be treated like humans. To do less is to consider human beings to be somehow above all of creation, as if our rights are more important. Animals are animals, and humans are humans. However, we all live on this planet we call earth and are connected by a series of communities all around us.
Animals and people are different, men are different from women, and kids are different from adults. Equality is not based off of identity, so why not give animals rights? Yes, they deserve equality, but that doesn’t mean that they should get the exact same treatment as humans. Equality means that you should take consideration of animals. Humans should only be treated in a different way when there is a straightforward connected difference between them. If everyone considered animals the same to humans then we would give them