Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on human interaction with animals
Animal conflicts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on human interaction with animals
The Animals Lawsuit Against Humanity, highlights the discourses that the animals have against the humans. It tells the story of how the humans came to the island where the animals where inhabitants and soon after decided to use the animals for their personal benefit. However, the animals that weren’t able to escape faced violence, malice and abuse at the hands of the humans and this was the basis of their lawsuit. The humans argue that they are more superior to the animals because they believed that the animals were created to be their slaves, as well as the fact that the humans had “souls, consciousness and understanding” and finally because they could walk upright, therefore that justifies the way they treated the animals. On the other hand, …show more content…
Instead, the animals and humans were to live in harmony with each other, and the humans faced severe punishments should they break the terms of the verdict. Evident when it’s written, Should you err, the animals will begin to disappear, one by one, forever, from the face of the earth; and the air in your settlements and fortresses will become dangerous to breathe...the seasons will be reversed and your climates turned on end...the animals you eat will bring sickness and death upon you...and you will no longer rule the earth.” Finally, the Islamic sources are talking about how the Hadiths and the Qur’an talk about respecting animals, much the same way the outcome of the Lawsuit was that the humans were to respect the animals and live in harmony with them or else they would be punished. No one being is more superior than the other, instead there must be a way for all to live in harmony in order to sustain each other. The earth existed with animals inhabiting it far longer than it has with humans, yet the impact and nature of human brutality against other animals as well as humans has left a lasting impact within such a short period of
Species egalitarianism is an easily outmoded form of communicating treatment of species because of all the questions and speculation it ultimately raises. The equivocation of animals is absurd. We can’t compare them because of all their fundamental differences, and to do so is insulting to all species that fall below the parameters we instill. Ultimately, there is no possible situation in which species egalitarianism is correct.
Singer ensures that the reader can easily relate to this concept by drawing parallels between it, racism and sexism. Drawing this parallel also automatically associates speciesism with a negative emotion in the mind of the reader, since the concepts of racism and sexism generally carry powerful negative connotations in the modern age. It is then easier for Singer to convince the reader that a variance in treatment for animals simply based on the fact that they are not human is “morally indefensible” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 16). Speciesism thus becomes a powerful vehicle to convey the arguments he makes against the difference in treatment afforded by humans to animals as compared to other humans.
Human beings are arrogant and think they are the superior species in Earth. However, human beings are not born to rule the world, and we are just like one of the creatures that are living in this world. What if there were stronger species in Earth that use human beings just as like we use the animals in the aquarium. Human beings could be used for unwanted performing shows and may lose our lives in vain from deadly experiments. We should not be keeping animals under our property just like we do not own other human beings. They are sentient and have cognitive capacity just like human beings therefore treating harshly or differently is
Therefore, it is because of our moral duty to all other TCL’s that humans are superior to all other Teleological Centers of Life. Only humans, because of moral agency, are capable of recognizing that all TCL’s have a good of their own. Organisms that lack moral agency cannot understand or appreciate the inherent worth of other beings. As a result, they cannot adopt the attitude of respect for nature. It would be incomprehensible for a plant to understand what is good for a human. Likewise, to believe that a tree or blade of grass can respect nature in the same capacity as a human is ridiculous.
People often see themselves as being above all other animals. They consider themselves more cultured, more intelligent, and more ethical. To some degree, they are correct. We are more technologically advanced, and we do indeed have a higher intelligence than most animals. However, people can often feel very powerful when we viciously attack other people, ripping their dreams apart like a shark shredding a helpless seal.
Animals can be a man's best friend; however, they can also be ones worst enemy after passing certain boundaries. Peter Singer who wrote Animal Liberation gave valid points in my opinion because animals do have a right to live and we should give them their space. Humans take everything for granted and never seem to learn until it too late. Today slaughterhouses are abusing animals in disturbing ways which has to change. I will agree with Singers concepts on animals because they have a right to live a peaceful life like humans; they have a life ahead of them once they are born. Singer argues that animals should have their interests considered throughout their lives. Singer wants to eliminate speciesism from our thoughts which is, a human discriminatory belief that all other animals are not as good as them therefore they do not have rights and we could do what we want to them. We should not be the only types of "animals" in this earth who has a set of rights we should abide.
This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways. One such defense is that we are not morally wrong to prioritize our needs before the needs of nonhuman animals for “the members of any species may legitimately give their fellows more weight than they give members of other species (or at least more weight than a neutral view would grant them). Lions, too, if they were moral agents, could not then be criticized for putting other lions first” (Nozick, 79). This argument, that we naturally prefer our own kind, is based on the same fallacy used by racists while defending their intolerant beliefs and therefore should be shown to have no logical merit.
"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.
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.
Slaughter. Torture. Neglected. Starvation. Everyday innocent animals have to face these consequences because of us. Animals can show more love and affection to us than we humans can. Animals are not only subjects to animal testing, fur farming, breeding, factory farming, dog fighting, but also many other purposes. Animal cruelty perfectly epitomizes the fact that animals can show more compassion, respect to others. A dog, otherwise known as a “man’s best friend” always has this thing called a collar, choked on its neck. So does that mean we in return have to wear a collar too, being pulled in the direction that the dog wants to go, never having the chance to go where we want, do what we want? A young orca forcefully separated from their mother to be enslaved into performing at water parks eternally. Not only that, they are enclosed in these small cages and have to spend endless hours cramped up in that tight space. The pool they swim in is far smaller than what they can swim in if they were free, off in the wild. Is that fair to them that for our satisfaction and pleasure, these animals are deprived from their perfect live? As Christine Stevens had said, “The basis of all animal rights should be the Golden Rule: we should treat them as we would wish them to treat us, were any other species in our dominant position.”
... 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.
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.
I cannot conceive a world where, we humans, are inferior and at the mercy of other animals or alien creatures. I am sure you agree with me on this point. Yet, if we look around and above ourselves, we allow some humans to treat us as inferiors. And the irony is that we give them the power to do so. For a tiny %, the marriage certificate becomes a license to abuse.
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.
Cavalieri , Paola. The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.