Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Do animals deserve rights
Should animals be given the same rights as humans
Positives and negatives of reinforcement
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Do animals deserve rights
This question we must ask ourselves is, do non-human animals matter? We also ask ourselves what defines a person? To answer this questions, non-human animals do matter. We constantly argue whether or not an animal deserves rights. According to our class definition, a right is a moral or legal entitlement that have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Usually, if an animal is not deemed intelligent or has a conscious, they should not have rights. A right is a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Although many people believe non-human animals should have rights, is it our duty to improve the welfare of non-human animals. Defined by the class, a duty is a responsibility to do or not to do …show more content…
In the reading "Minds of their own", I found it surprising that accepted that animals are like robots. In modern day society, many believe that some animals have an awareness of the self which seems to be common sense. Unlike robots, non human animals are more likely to have mental and intellectual capabilities. The acknowledgement of mental and intellectual skills of a non human animal would raise questions regarding animal rights. For example, the current debate regarding Sea World and its aquatic animals. They are debating about the issues and concerns about holding aquatic animals’ captivity. Non human animals have minds as well and should be allowed to use them. Non human animals have the ability to think on their own just as humans, unlike robots. Animals have emotions just like humans and they should be treated with the same respect as humans. Also, if you take the time to really think about it, animals do not live forever, they eventually die. However, if a robot dies, you can fix it and it will work again. Robots also cannot think for themselves, they are manmade. Unlike animals, they are capable to think for …show more content…
The way animals are treated in zoos, laboratories, and farms has become a concern to many people. ‘Suffering’ covers a wide range of different emotional states such as fear, boredom, exhaustion, pain grief, thirst, and hunger. Suffering is also defined as the bearing or undergoing of pain, distress or injury. Laws, guidelines, regulations, and codes have been put in place to inform people of how animals should be treated. All the animals are not humans, they feel pain as well, and they should not have to suffer because of our selfish wants and needs. Humans response towards negative and positive reinforcers are similar to the way non-human animals react. All though we may be genetically and physically different, we are still pretty similar. Therefore, we should treat animals the way we want to be treated. (Dawkins) Some animals can show us their emotions from positive and negative reinforcements by their behavior. Some animals show their emotions by pushing doors or pecking keys. Other animals have autonomic responses, for example, increase in heart rate associated with emotional situations such as aggression. Other animals have specific behaviors such as vocalizations associated with their emotional state. Animal suffering causes us to question the things we do. For example, we shouldn’t kill animals or inflict pain on
In his article entitled “Animal Liberation,” Peter Singer suggests that while animals do not have all of the exact same rights as humans, they do have an equal right to the consideration of their interests. This idea comes from the fact that animals are capable of suffering, and therefore have sentience which then follows that they have interests. Singer states “the limit to sentience...is the only defensible boundary of concern for interests of others” (807). By this, he means that the ability to feel is the only grounds for which rights should be assigned because all species of animals, including humans, have the ability, and therefore all animals have the right to not feel suffering and to instead feel pleasure.
Expanding this thought process, the moral thinking that animal suffering should be included in rational decision making, past the realm of simply whether or not eating animals is ethically wrong leads us to other places where animal suffering may prove helpful to human life. This such place being examined is the medical experimentation field. Animals are being bred and created just to usually live short, painful lives. The animals are treated with varying degrees of concern for their well being. The mass suffering of the animals, not just for a short time remember usually the suffering lasts for years, in some eyes are seen is seen as a necessary evil on the road to medical and scientific development. This thought process falling from the hierarchy of species that has ingrained itself in human minds, the idea that humans are the most important and worthy, and thus any suffering of “inferior creatures” should not be considered when there is the possibility for advancement. This idea however is a flaw in moral
What do we, as humans have to do in order to give nonhuman animals the proper treatment and equal moral consideration as we owe for other humans? Some, such as Jeremy Bentham would address that, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (99). Other moral philosophers, like Henry Sidgwick, however reject the theory of utilitarianism thinking that is pleasure all that really matters and are consequences all that matters (111-112)? Humans use nonhuman animals for one purpose; pleasure from using their skins for luxury goods. In this paper, I will explain and examine what Jeremy Bentham is trying explain in his argument, and will attempt to show that his argument is a plausible one, by replying an objection against his utilitarian view.
Goodall argues that her readers have an ethical obligation to protect animals from suffering, but she also implies that it might be necessary sometimes to abandon that obligation. She points out that animals share similar traits with human beings: they have a capacity for certain human emotions, and they may be capable of legitimate friendship. Goodall’s evidence for this claim is an anecdote from her research. She recounts that one chimpanzee in her study, named David Greybeard, “gently squeezed [her] hand” when she offered him food (62). Appealing to readers’ emotions, Goodall hopes to persuade readers that the chimp is “sociable” and “sentient,” or feeling (62). According to Goodall’s logic, if researchers are careful to avoid tests that cause human suffering, they should also be careful to avoid tests that cause suffering for other life forms.
Mulkeen, Declan and Carter, Simon. “When Should Animals Suffer?” Times Higher Education Supplement 1437 (5/26/2000): p34
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
"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.
... 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.
The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: should non-human animals have rights? I firmly believe that non-human animals should be given rights, rights such as the right to freedom, the right to be treated with respect and care, and the right to not be exploited. Non-human animals are similar to humans in many ways and they should not be subjected to the unsanitary and crowded living conditions that factory farms and other forms of non-human animal mass production factories force them into.. They have families that they care for females bear their children just as humans do. Many human beings take think they have an inferior position over non-human animals and inflict extreme suffering upon them. I believe non-human animals should be given rights.
The experiments and other data show that animals are not just driven by instincts alone. There is more to them than that. It is hard to watch dogs play and believe that they derive no fun or pleasure from it at all. Animals have shown that they are sensitive to their social surroundings. They punish one another and alleviate other’s pain. Some monkeys in established communities attack those that find food and don’t share. These studies are important. A better understanding of how animals are feeling could create a whole new guideline of rules on the way animals should be treated. Humans should not be so arrogant to believe they are the only animals capable of emotion. How are we capable of seeing from their viewpoint and assume they feel no emotion.
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.
According to the philosopher Peter Singer, speciesists treat human interests as more fundamental than other nonhuman animals interests; therefore, speciesists ignore the interests of other species where no great benefit to human interests is concerned (Singer 279). For instance, the BUAV claims that experiments like sewing kittens’ eyelids together to study amblyopia have been done many years ago, and yet no cure has been found (Hanlon 1). As a result, Singer argues nonhuman animals are regarded as only “an item of laboratory equipment” (281). Many of the experiments on animals are carried out for rather trivial interests such that speciesists give the weight of nonhuman animals less weight than the interests of human beings. Singer asserts that human beings need to apply the principle of equal consideration of interests to animals to give equal weight on them (Singer 277). Singer’s theory of equal consideration of interests is extremely useful because it sheds insight on vivisection since the fundamental issue in how human may treat animals is whether they suffer and such that pains of animals and humans deserve equal considerations (Singer 278). Whether it’s poultry farming or vivisection, sentient animals have interests of not experiencing pain or suffering (Singer 278). According to Hanlon, animal recruits lead better lives and better deaths in laboratory than in poultry
All in all, emotional pain, physical pain, or the extent of the abuse, is mistreatment towards any animal and should not be tolerated but instead be brought awareness to. It is our job to be the voice for the creatures who cannot speak up for themselves. Followed by the empathy of humans, especially that of children, I believe that by bringing awareness to this social injustice will result in a more thoughtful and compassionate community who will have the power and responsibility to make choices in the best interest of animals. It will give the community a sense of pride to stand up for something so important to society. Finally, the actions that we can take in order to bring about the awareness of animal cruelty will have a significance to ensuring the safety of pets and other animals across the globe.
One of the greatest arguments against non human animals having rights is that they cannot speak for themselves, they cannot think and they are less human and so they can be created as such. There are flaws on this argument. Humans have an obligation to the society in a certain manor and this determines how they behave. From a young age, people are taught how to behave and act in a certain way and animal neglect and cruelty goes against the basic principles we are taught as children. Secondly, In addition, opponents argue that rights only belong to moral agents and that animals like moral urgency. This is absurd because some animals for example primates actually think very well and this should not be used against animals being given rights. Animals may not be having self awareness and are not able to communicate well but at least they inherently have rights just because they do exist as living things and they are able to feel pain and other emotions. Their ability to suffer and feel pain gives them a right not to be subj...