Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Abstract on the project of animal rights
Topic on animal rights
Animal rights history essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Abstract on the project of animal rights
Animal rights can be defined as the rights that are believed to belong to animals to live free from the use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans. Animal Rights can often be a touchy subject, and there are numerous different opinions regarding animal rights. The purpose of this essay is to touch base on a brief history of animal rights, the laws involved, and various opinions regarding animal rights. …show more content…
In England, about a hundred and eighty years ago, the first efforts to obtain legal protection for members of other species were made. If we jump forward to the post World War Two era we find the strongest base for humane groups. The reason for this is the decline of an agricultural life and the growth of a suburban way of living, thus allowing an expanding base of pet lovers. If we fast forward a little bit further to the year 1966 we will encounter the Animal Welfare Act, “The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) [1] is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to “promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors.”[2] The AWA also requires the Secretary to “promulgate standards to govern the transportation in commerce, and the handling, care, and treatment in connection therewith, by intermediate handlers, air carriers, or other carriers, of animals consigned by any . . . person . . . for transportation in commerce.”[3] The Secretary has delegated these duties to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in the USDA.” (Source 6) The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was the first federal law in the United States that regulated animal research. It …show more content…
Be a party to or cause the fighting, baiting, or shooting of an animal as described in subdivision. Rent or otherwise obtain the use of a building, shed, room, yard, ground, or premises for fighting, baiting, or shooting an animal as described in subdivision.” (Source 8) All of these laws are primary examples of the involvement of the government when it comes to animal protection, but some people would like the government to be less involved when it comes to animal rights and policy making. Some of the main arguments against animal rights are: Animals don 't think, Animals are not really conscious, Animals were put on earth to serve human beings, Animals don 't have souls, Animals don 't behave morally ,Animals are not members of the 'moral community ', Animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment, and Animals don 't think. Often times we find various opinions regarding animal rights. The opposing side could also argue that animal rights lessen the progress in advancements of the medical field. One could also say that animal rights prevents people from participating in activities that they would find to be a normal part of their everyday lives such as hunting and
United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library. Animal Welfare Act. 8 April 2014. 14 April 2014.
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.
Loeb, Jerod M. “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2011
Animal rights can defined as the idea that some, or all non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Animal rights can help protect the animals who experience research and testing that could be fatal towards them. The idea of animal rights protects too the use of dogs for fighting and baiting. Finally, animal rights affects the farms across america, limiting what animals can be slaughtered. The bottom line is, there is too much being done to these animals that most do not know about.
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...
The fact that humans can take the lives of animals depicts their lack of moral value in relation to humans. However, if moral value is tied to moral rights, how does one compare the moral rights of humans and animals and why do humans possess more moral rights than nonhuman species? The main reason why some may say that humans possess more moral rights than animals is because they are not self aware and lack cognitive capacities. In Empty Cages: Animal Rights and Vivisection, Tom Regan states that those who deny animals of their rights usually emphasize on the uniqueness of human beings by stating that, "...we understand our own mortality and make moral choices. Other animals do none of these things. That is why we have rights and they do not (p. 100)." However, in The Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals by Charles Darwin, he states that animals, or at least nonhuman mammals, share the same cognitive abilities as humans. For instance, nonhuman mammals are able to "learn from experience, remember the past, anticipate the future (p.102)." Additionally, nonhuman mammals are also capable of experiencing fear, jealousy, and sadness. With these cognitive abilities, nonhuman mammals should then be qualified to obtain moral rights, which are
The Case for Animal Rights. Routledge, London-New York, 1988. Regan T. The Struggle for Animal Rights. International Society for Animal Rights.
"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.
As in any debate though there is always an opposing side, which seems to toss out their opinions and facts as frequently as the rest. So many in today’s world view animal research as morally wrong and believe animals do have rights. Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection.
Animals are just as living as we are, they deserve the same basic rights that we do and they deserve to live a life without pain and suffering that humans so often inflict. As humans, we have a natural need to help and protect. This need should range from world hunger to ending all harm that comes to any species. We are natural born leaders and therefore it is our responsibility to look out for those who look up to us. As animals have no say we have to be there voice and speak up where needed. Through this and advocating for a better tomorrow we can make a difference in animal abuse and end all harm to those innocent, to make the world a better equalized place.
"Animal rights - moral or legal entitlements attributed to nonhuman animals, usually because of the complexity of their cognitive, emotional, and social lives or their capacity to experience physical or emotional pain or pleasure." (Britannia encyclopedia online, n.d.). The definition of animal rights is so clear to us. Human rights need to be protected, so do animal rights. In 1976, in New York City, thousands of cat lovers were beaten when they heard a painful test to be taken for pets’ sexual behavior. Henry Spira, the leader of animal rights movement, helped to mobilize a protest and marked the beginning of the contemporary animal rights movement. The group took dramatic and public action to express their concerns and anger. They were eager in their language, tactics, and methods of appealing new recruits to the cause of animal rights approach (Jasper & Nelkin, 1992, p. 26). This essay will discuss how people deal with animals and what animal rights people should respect and protect.
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.
There are tremendous amount of debates that go on in this world on a daily basis. One of the most talked about debates of the century is that of animal rights and experimentations. This debate, also known in the animal rights community as vivisection, is one of the most difficult to understand. Individuals have numerous different outlooks on animals. Many individuals look upon animals as companions while others see animals as an object of advancing medical techniques. No matter what ones perception is of animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics companies all throughout the world. In spite of the fact that humans frequently benefit from successful animal experimentations, the pain, and occasionally death that often occurs is not worth the human benefit. Hence, animals should not be the use of research.
Animals are used for people 's entertainment or own benefits, but the question is what benefits do they get? Do they even get any? This paper tells about the things animals go through to help or just entertain us in life. For example the tiny cramped places animals are forced into. If the animals don 't perform well in zoos or circuses a lot of times they simple won 't feed them. The owners beating them for nothing. Lastly experiments on them and they can not even defend themselves. Animals should not be used for human benefit. Using animals for any kind of entertainment or experiment can be considered against the law especially if they are put in poor conditions and harmed. Animals have rights that should be taken seriously. Animals also have
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.