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.
To begin I will give a brief outline of what rights are, their functions and how they server us. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a right as including "a thing one may legally or morally claim; the state of being entitled to a privilege or immunity or authority to act.” Rights are things to which you are entitled or allowed, freedoms that are guaranteed. Human rights are laws (e.g.) the Canadian Human Rights Act that ensure equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination where people are protected and not placed at disadvantage simply because of their age, sex, race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability and a pardoned criminal conviction – as stated in on the Canadian Human Rights Commission website. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris in 1948 as a result of the Second World War and was in hopes to bring equality to ...
... middle of paper ...
...-human animals cannot speak English, and each species has their own ‘language’, there is no possible way to make them understand. In that case, how would this work?
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.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
The article mainly focuses on this issue, not mentioning the aspects of animal rights. The authors argue their points well but can have counter-arguments against some
Human rights are the inborn and universal rights of every human being regardless of religion, class, gender, culture, age, ability or nationality, that ensure basic freedom and dignity. In order to live a life with self-respect and dignity basic human rights are required.
In his Meditations, Rene Descartes argues that animals are purely physical entities, having no mental or spiritual substance. Thus, Descartes concludes, animals can’t reason, think, feel pain or suffer. Animals, are mere machines with no consciousness. Use the Internet to explore the issue of animal rights. Investigate the legacy left by Rene Descartes concerning the moral status of animals.
... animals in technologically intensive economies and threats to the very surgical of wild animals species” (Fellenz 74-77). Even after all this, the number of animals used in agriculture and research grows by the billions every year, in the United States. “Many animals have financial value to humans. Livestock farmers, ranchers, pharmaceutical companies, zookeepers, circus trainers, and breeders are among the many people who have a financial interest in the animal trade. If humans were to stop using animals, these people would be out of work. Many others would be deprived of their favorite sport and leisure activities” (Evans). Thanks to the many efforts done, by the many people in England and the United States, many other counties began creating animals rights as well, like Asia and South America. Still to this day, do animals rights organizations flourish worldwide.
Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”(Arthur Schopenhauer)
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.
However, it is the purpose of this essay to convince the reader otherwise. The question at hand is: do animals deserve rights? It must certainly be true. Humans deserve rights and this claim is made on numerous appeals. Of one of the pertinent pleas is made on the claim that humans can feel emotions. More importantly, that humans are capable of suffering, and that to inflict such pain is unethical. Those who observe the tortures of the Nazi Concentration Camp are instilled with a humane creed held for all humans. But if there is no significant gulf between humans, that is to say there is no gulf based on skin color, creed, or gender that will make one human more or less valuable than any other, then by what right can a gulf be drawn out between humans and our fellow creatures? The suffering of humans is why we sympathize with each other. Since animals suffer, they deserve our sympathy.
What is human rights? According to the New World Encyclopedia Human rights are those rights that each person is entitled to simply because he or she is a human being. Human rights are guaranteed by law no matter one’s nationality and should not be violated by any state or none-state officials. The idea of human rights depends on the possibility that every individual has worth and nobility and in this way merits certain fundamental freedoms.[1] With the acknowledgement of these basic freedoms, each person can make their own decisions and form their own opinions without their rights of safety or security being violated or threatened by government or nongovernment bureaucrats. Therefore, it is understood globally that humans are entitled to at least three types of rights. First, is civil rights which incorporates individual rights to freedom of speech, religion, and beliefs. Next,
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.
over 1,800 cases of animal cruelty in the past year because of the lack of animals having rights revealed in the media, with 64.5% involving dogs, 18% involving cats and the other 25% involving other animals. They should have rights because they have feelings, they are valuable, and they mean a lot to some families to the point where they’re considered to be a part of the family. Most importantly, humans are also animals, So think about how you would feel if someone had full control over you or someone you loved and did things to you that you didn’t enjoy or like. You have to think about their world from their standpoint. Yes, they are animals but they should not be less valued just because they are different from humans.
Cavalieri , Paola. The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.