Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Discussion of the case for animal rights
Do animals have rights arguments and debates
Discussion of the case for animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Discussion of the case for animal rights
The oil has always been on top. Always. The water has always been on bottom. Always. In a bottle, oil is always considered to be on top, the steadier, important substance, at a higher level than water. Oil is at the top of the liquid chain. Then again, they are both liquids and have similar characteristics; does that mean water and oil should be on the same level? Should they be considered the equal? Many people agree that animals should have some rights. Animal rights, by definition, is an animal’s right to live free from human caused suffering. However, what is continually debated is what kind of rights animals ought to have. Should animals be considered an equal to the human species or be kept below them? Although animals share many attributes with human beings, there are too many differences between them for them to be considered equal.
First of all, animals do not need to be equal or have the same privileges because of their basic needs. There are 3 main necessities: food and water, shelter, and a habitat . Food and water for them to eat and drink, shelter to protect them from predators and bad weather, and a habitat to live in and interact with others (“The Basic Needs of Animals”). Considering the fact animals’ sole purpose in life is to survive and continue their species, certain liberties are of no concern to these creatures and would be wasted on them: the right to drive, the right to vote, the freedom to walk through streets without leashes, and the freedom to eat whatever they like. So of course, it would be unrealistic to say animals are equal to humans when more than half of what humans do does not matter to them.
What most animal rights activists would say is animals should not be discounted for their intelli...
... middle of paper ...
...Web. 25 Mar. 2011.
Katz, Jon. "Animals Need Better Care, Not Equal Rights." Slate (5 Mar. 2004). Rpt. in The Rights of Animals. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Mar. 2011.
Kobilnyk, Andrey. “Do Animals Have Rights?” First Science. 1 Oct. 2007. Web.26 Jan. 2011.
Stiver, Randy. "God Did Not Make Animals the Moral Equivalent of Humans." The Rights of Animals. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.
Thorpe, Joey. Personal Interview. 31 Jan. 2011.
Will, George F. "U.K. Pets Get 'Freedoms'; Humans need freedom from government supervision of all dealings between people, or between people and tropical fish." Newsweek 13 Feb. 2006: 72. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Mar. 2011.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Cohen proposes that rights are a claim that must be exercised, and since animals cannot exercise their rights they cannot have rights. Furthermore, Cohen suggests in order to have rights, “the holder of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves” and thus must have a “moral capacity” (817). Hence, it follows that animals cannot have rights since they lack a free moral judgment and are thus are unable to understand morality or laws that govern society. Therefore, Cohen believes rights can only be given to those able to claim
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Defense of Animals. Ed. Peter Singer. New York:
“Certainly animals do not have the same abilities as humans. They can’t talk, write books, or drive cars, but neither can some humans. Do we say that humans who lack these abilities have no value and no rights? Certainly not…” (Animal Liberation 31)
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.
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
Clemmitt, Marcia. "Animal Rights." CQ Researcher by CQ Press. N.p., 10 Jan. 2010. Web. 27
Morrison, Nick. "Animal Rights and Wrongs." Northern Echo, 24 Feb. 2001: n. pag. elibrary. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
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).
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.
Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Call Number: HV4711.A5751992. Morris, Richard Knowles, and Michael W. Fox, eds. On the Fifth Day, Animal Rights. and Human Ethics.
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.
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.
Cavalieri , Paola. The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.