My Views on Animal Rights

1707 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The argument for animal rights

During this course many of the topics discussed I found interesting. Of the many, the topic that I found most interesting is about animal rights. I want to further express my view on this topic. I believe animals do not have rights and people only give animals rights because people believe animals have souls. I have come to this conclusion due to further reading and personal experience.
Animals do not have rights because animals do not have voices. If animals had voices they would be considered human beings, which of course, they are not. Animals are actually sub-creatures of the world. My stance on this is derived from the fact that animals are treated just as such of what they are; animals. Animals are designed to accommodate human beings for different purposes. Sometimes animals are there to supplement companionship. In the case of the widow or widower, single person living alone, or the lonely but only child without any siblings, are when animals help ease feelings of abandonment. Animals are also used to entertain us. When children attend a circus affair or a day's visit at the zoo the animals are there for entertainment purposes only.
In part nine, section six, of John Cottingham’s Western Philosophy Second Edition, he writes about Immanuel Kant’s view on animals rights. In this section he explains that Kant argues that we, as humans, have duties to animals. Kant believes that our duties to animals are indirect but animals are ‘analogues’ of human beings and our relationship with animals provides an example of how we would interact with another human being. He continues to explain that since animals have no sense of judgment that we as humans have to act on their behalf. Kant refers to Alexander Baumgarten, another philosoph...

... middle of paper ...

... the only animals that enjoy hunting as a sport like humans. Cats will hunt even when they are not hungry and find their prey to be toys. This applies to big wild cats as well. The male lion will kill lion cubs if they belong to their falling foe of a pride he is trying to rule. How could we sympathize with an animal like that?
Animals are not our friends. We know that animals are not equal to the superior human. Animals are viscous and will survive by any means necessary even if that means attacking the human. Pain is not a factor for them therefore it does not bring more pain into the world and animals are not entitled to moral rights. Eating animals is natural normal and necessary for the human survival. It is the humans’ decision to use animals for their own amusement and entertainment but it all comes down to the fact that animals are here to serve the humans.

Show More
Related

  • Eric Schlosser's Slaughterhouse In The High Plains

    594 Words  | 2 Pages

    A common person would be an animal lover, never wanting to bring harm to any animal. Still, they eat food that is handled in such an inhumane way. People do not think about the hypocrisy of it all. They fight against abuse to

    Read More

  • The Ethics of Animal Use in Biomedical Research

    1849 Words  | 4 Pages

    Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Dogfighting

    1072 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Carl Cohen's Do Animals Have Rights?

    722 Words  | 2 Pages

    After reading “Do Animals Have Rights?” by Carl Cohen, the central argument of the article is that rights entail obligations. Cohen examines the syllogism that all trees are plants but does not follow the same that all plants are trees. Cohen explains the syllogism through the example of hosts in a restaurant. They have obligation to be cordial to their guests, but the guest has not the right to demand cordiality. Cohen explains using animals, for example his dog has no right to daily exercise and veterinary care, but he does have the obligation to provide those things for her. Cohen states that animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in, and has force within, a human moral world. Humans must deal with rats-all too frequently in some parts of the world-and must be moral in their dealing with them; but a rat can no more be said to have rights than a table can be said to have ambition.

    Read More

  • Trophy Hunting Persuasive Essay

    873 Words  | 2 Pages

    First of all, why do we have the right to kill animals? Who gave us permission to do it? Animals’ lives should be respected like ours, after all we were all created with a purpose. Each one of us has the same right to live because we all form part of what is called “food chain”. For example if we had no grass what would antelopes eat? With no antelopes what would lions eat? And so on. It doesn’t make any sense to me how we are killing them not to survive but to have fun. I don’t think is fair either that because they are under us in the food chain we can do whatever we want with them, equality is for all kinds of creatures. Like Ann Causey, stated in Governor's Symposium on North America's Hunting Heritage in 1992: "Does killing an animal primarily to obtain a trophy demonstrate respect for that anima...

    Read More

  • Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach?

    1030 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Right To Live

    806 Words  | 2 Pages

    The animal rights movement is trying to get people to see exactly how animals have been treated. Most people see animal cruelty as “…unspeakable acts perpetrated by warped individuals mostly against dogs, cats, birds, and sometimes horses” (Munro, 512). Once seeing how countless animals have been treated, numerous people across the world are joining the cause to help these poor “nonhuman animals”. One reason that supports that animals deserve rights is that “non-human mammals over a year of age have mental capacities for memory, a sense of future, emotion, and self-awareness to a certain extent” (Dog˘an, 474). With this reasoning, animals have enough mental capacity to be considered subjects of life, and therefore deserve rights to support this thesis. Another reason states that “rights are defined in terms of capability of having interests” (Dog˘an, 481). Animals show an interest in living. As stated, “[a]nimals have a natural motive to live…[e]very day, they practice caution and care necessary to protect themselves. Their bodies are likewise structured for survival” (Dog˘an,

    Read More

  • Peter Singer, And Tom Regan, Peter Singer And Aldo Leopold

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • animal rights

    1959 Words  | 4 Pages

    the same rights as humans do. Like us, animals can feel pain and fear, but also

    Read More

  • The Case for Animal Rights

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Animals and Humans Are Not Equal

    1101 Words  | 3 Pages

    Meat contains many vitamins. Animals will have rights when they have the means to enforce them. They don't have the ability to reason, as humans do. The human race has such a vast understanding of the necessity for all of the different species of animals to exist. Humans are far superior to any other animal because they are so advanced in technology.

    Read More

  • Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical?

    2169 Words  | 5 Pages

    A. A. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.

    Read More

  • Should Animals Have Rights?

    996 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Animal Rights Essay

    970 Words  | 2 Pages

    It’s fair to assume there should be disparity between the way cats and cows are treated, or the way chickens and dogs are. Certain animals have their place in the animal kingdom, grazing animals like cows and chickens have historically been used as a food source since the concept of animal husbandry was introduced, on the other end of the spectrum cats and dogs have been domesticated and kept as common house pets. The suggestion that livestock have the same emotions and feelings as a typical housecat can be up to debate. Peter Singer states that the behavior of some apes, dolphins and dogs suggest they have emotions and desires. All of the evidence, or the lack thereof, leads to issues concerning the ethical treatment of all animals.

    Read More

  • ANIMAL RIGHTS

    794 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about My Views on Animal Rights

Open Document