Philosophical Argumentative Essay: Do Animals Have Rights

Rachel Beville

Professor Cole

PHIL 100 – 800

18 November 2015

Philosophical Evaluation 3: Animals Have Rights

I think the claim that animals have no rights because they are not moral agents is untrue. I think this is untrue because human concepts cannot be applied nor expected from non-human species.

Like humans, animals are living creatures, capable of feeling the same emotions as we do. Animals are alive. They have lives, families, souls, and feelings, just as humans do. Humans possess a high intelligence that no other life form has yet shown: the capability to obtain morals and process political standings. In Tibor Machan’s argument, he states how without moral jurisdiction, one cannot have the option of rights. This is simply not true.

If this were true, human beings would only have rights once they were cognitive and intelligent enough to understand morals. Does this mean that newborns and the mentally ill have no rights because they do not understand them? No. This claim is false because humans decided to put a label on morals and rights. Simply, morals are a human concept. How can we apply a human concept to non-humans? Perhaps animals do in fact have morals which are different than what humans’ have- there is no basis to secure if this is true or not. Without the capabilities of intelligent communication, there is no surefire way to deduct reason from animals. Humans are a perspicacious species, yet this ability is exclusive to humans, as far as we know. Comparing humans to animals, one would succumb to the realization that there is only one apparent different in the minds of humans and animals: the ability to speak. Like humans, animals are able to feel happiness, loneliness, fear and guilt; they are capable of suffering in the same ways humans can; they feel loss the same way as we do. So who are we to say they have no rights?
A common objection to this reasoning could be that animals do not need rights in order to be assured of their well-being.

The only basis for animals having rights lies with the reason of humans having morals. Since we have morals, we believe animals should be treated humanely and taken care of. This could attribute to the idea that animals need rights. Many believe that animals having rights rests on if they have morals, however the rights do not lie with the animals, they lie with the humans. Since humans have rights and morals, they are aware of right and wrong and what should and should not be done. Contrary to humans, animals do not know the difference between right and wrong. Because of this, they do not have the ability to obtain rights since they cannot fathom how to do right. Those who fight for animals’ rights are often confused of what they are actually fighting for- they are actually fighting for humans to treat animals properly and with respect- humanely, if you will. Therefore it is not a matter of if animals should deserve rights, as it is that humans should use their rights to protect the animals. This objection to me personally should not be considered due to the fact that human dominance can lead to the misuse of power. Even in the event that we do not give animals rights, but still treat them humanely, does not stop people from keeping animals in captivity and using them for their own pleasure and entertainment. Just because cruelty is not enacted does not

make a situation or act right with morals. Animals will and forever will have rights; the right of freedom, the right to live wherever they please, the right to have interests, the right to like and dislike whatever or whoever they please, or even the right to life. Just because animal rights are different than human rights does not mean they should or should not have them. Animals, like humans, have lives of their own that should be respected. After all, humans are animals too.