More handpicked essays just for you.
Do animals have rights arguments and debates
Why should animals be granted rights
Animal rights vs human rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Do animals have rights arguments and debates
To begin, Peter Singer is widely known for popularizing the term “speciesism”, which is a term that views only humans as morally considered (Gruen, 2017). Singer emphasizes on how speciesism favours humans interests (Gruen, 2017). In a way, it is a form of discrimination. Rather than race, it is prejudice against species. Singer argues that by giving humans a special moral status and denying that to animals is unjust, and is what speciesism essentially is (Gruen, 2017). He provides examples as to how animals are constantly experimented on; such as applying electric shocks on them in order for them to perform several tasks, and monkeys having metal collars around their necks (Singer, 2009, p. 42, 44). Singer claims, from a scientific point of
In the essay, “Are All Species Equal?” the author, David Schmidtz, stiffly denounces the views on species egalitarianism by philosopher Paul Taylor. Schmidtz explores Taylor’s views from all angles and criticisms and concludes that “biocentrism has a point but that it does not require any commitment to species equality.” (Schmidtz, 115). Schmidtz agrees with the major points of biocentrism; that humans live on the same terms as all other species in the community, that all species are interdependent and are all in pursuit of their own good. However, each species should not all be looked upon as the same and with the same level of contributions as every other species. There’s no way to compare one living thing to another unless the two are exactly identical. Therefore, instead of saying that every species is in fact on the same level, we should respect that each living thing should be evaluated differently. This is where respect for nature comes into play. Respecting each individual species for its own attributions is more just than saying that all should be treated equally. Schmidtz goes on to say that biocentrism and respect for nature do not go hand in hand with species egalitarianism, which to me, is a valid
“Even if animal testing produced the cure for Aids, we’d be against it” This rhetoric notion was stated by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and summarizes the fanatical doctrine animal rights activists preach to their followings. These activists preach a doctrine of hate calling for the end of all meat eating, wearing of fur, use of animals in experiments regardless if they are beneficial or not, and even push for the end of all pets as we know of it. Howard Lyman author of “Mad Cowboy” has not only aligns himself with this rambunctious group of man haters, but supports their nazi like doctrine in his book. On further review of mad cowboy one must dig deep to find any useful knowledge, and when you do find it, one sees that the knowledge has been twisted to fit Lyman’s own agenda. Long dead are the days when knowledge was first gathered then conclusions derived, now statistics and data is twisted and molded to grant validity to ones own agenda.
Species egalitarianism is an easily outmoded form of communicating treatment of species because of all the questions and speculation it ultimately raises. The equivocation of animals is absurd. We can’t compare them because of all their fundamental differences, and to do so is insulting to all species that fall below the parameters we instill. Ultimately, there is no possible situation in which species egalitarianism is correct.
In the paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer defends the idea that is our moral duty to help others in need. Since there are other people in the world that are suffering and we our in a position to give, we are obligated to help create change in the world . In this paper I will explain Peter Singer’s view about how it is our moral duty to help those who are suffering in the world. Then I will present an implication of Peter Singer claim that implies how we are obligated to give upon to others that are suffering. I will then explain an argurment to provide a reason of why someone should support Peter Singer principle. Carried to a logical conclusion, Peter Singer aruement that his principle is clearly obligatory than superagory. I will consider the two actions that Peter Singer gives to distinguish duty versues chariy and argue that his principle should e consider a superagoty action. Since his
All different ethical theories can look at the same problem and come to different conclusions. Even philosopher’s such as Singer and Arthur understand and view ethical values differently. Peter Singer who uses the utilitarian theory believes that wealthy people should give to the degree that the wealthy person now someone in need themselves. John Arthur believes those in need or those suffering are only entitled to the help of the wealthy person if that person agrees to help, and that the property rights of the wealthy person declines the amount that Singer believes people should. People should help other people. I believe all people deserve the right to receive assistance and to not help those people would be morally wrong. However, I do not believe that the help that we are morally obligated to give should come at the cost of our own well-being.
An article written by an animal researcher and psychology professor discusses the lack of ethical treatment towards primates in research labs. The author of Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher, John P. Gluck, justified the unethical treatment of primates by believing that scientific advancements are superior to the harm the primates experienced. One day a student of his presented a dissertation about a female rhesus monkey who unexpectedly passed away. The dissertation caused Gluck to feel that the animals he caused much harm to were more than objects used to create data. Although he tried to continually justify his actions, he eventually felt guilty and decided that the primates deserve to be handled ethically. Throughout the article,
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.
...nger states “Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests”. Singer argues that, as there is no justification for unequal treatment of human beings based on capacity, it is also unjustifiable to treat human and non-human animals differently based on their capacities.
Although the chapter is occasionally hard to follow, Haraway successfully demonstrates an empathetic response to animals suffering due the actions of humans subjecting them to research. She uses arguments to support her views that animals should be regarded as co-workers rather than objects that simply react and are dispensable. She looks at the different perspectives of the act of killing between animals and humans, and states “The problem is actually to understand that human beings do not get a pass on the necessity of killing significant others, who are them-selves responding, not just reacting” (Haraway 2007, 80). This view is unique in comparison to what society commonly believes, so reading this chapter was both enlightening and interesting. Despite the interesting ideas and arguments that Haraway communicates, the chapter often has run on sentences and unnecessarily lengthy words, such as ‘multiplicitous’ (Haraway 2007, 80). This often made the chapter hard to read and therefor difficult to digest. This can, however, be seen as a fault of my own. My final thoughts on chapter 3 of ‘When Species Meet’ is that the extensive research that Haraway underwent proved effective when supporting her argument and, in turn, created a thought compelling and respectable piece of
For many years, people assumed that humans are significantly different from other species, which made them somewhat superior. However, research on animal behavior, especially our closest relatives, the apes has led to new discoveries that show many similarities between human and animals. Some of these similarities have questioned the uniqueness of humans and have led to debates not only among scientists but in the public as well. Frans de Waal, a renowned primatologist and the author of The Ape and the Sushi Master, is among the scientists that claim animals and humans are quite similar. The main focus of his book is to show that culture is not exclusive to humans. De Waal was not the first scientist to propose the theory that animals have culture nonetheless; it was received with a lot of enmity. He attributes this to the fear of losing the qualities that make humans special. Claims of language in apes became so threating that animal research was almost banned. According to de Waal, “attempts of censorship do reveal just how much insecurity surrounds human uniqueness”. (32) In an attempt to support his argument, he addresses the controversial issue of morality in animals. Morality is considered a cultural aspect and therefore people often use cultural biases in decision making. Dan Kahan, a psychologist, referred to this as cultural cognition, which “refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact to values that define their cultural identities”. Subsequently, theories on morality depend on the perspective of the scientists who carry out the research. De Waal supports his theory by analyzing aspects of morality in humans and comparing them to animal behavior.
Hurting an animal is better than hurting a fellow human being right? Well imagine a child being ripped away from his mother in today’s society, for no reason. Would that be considered okay, or kidnapping? Imagine humans being forced to breed, just so their children can be tortured for makeup or a new facial wash. Would that be considered okay, or morally incorrect? People do not see animals as fellow living things, because they do not have the power to say no like a person can. They can’t stand up for themselves, leaving the people of the world to do it for them. Seeing that there are other ways to test out consumer products, why harm defenseless, breathing, loving, beings? With all things considered, animal testing “has no place in science today” (Goodall, 1).
Animals and humans are very different, but one thing we have in common is the fact that we can both feel emotions and comprehend the world in a different perspective. Professor Peter Singer says, “The fundamental issue in determining how we may treat animals is whether they suffer and that the pains of animals and humans deserve equal considerations.” Vertebrates, also know as animals with a backbone, have the same nerves that humans have to feel pain. We have a moral obligation to animals to protect their rights as creatures of this earth and members of our modern day society. Animals have a life full of love and contentment, by torturing them we are denying them that right.
Singer believes animals should have their rights considered. He is trying to point out how we should care about their interests regardless of the type of animal. The only difference between humans and an animal is that we are different species and we should have respect to one another because we are both living. Singer talks about how do we know if animals feel pain and basically says we feel pain but react differently unless you are born with no pain receptor which is dangerous. He later gives an example of a rat and rock getting kicked along the road, if you kick a rock nothing will happen because it's a rock and does not have feelings; however, kicking a rat is bad because it will suffer. This brings a good point such as how we humans kill animals for fun a...
Although I do find Cohen’s defence of speciesism to be the strongest, I do not find it to be strong. The speciesist philosophy, while extremely beneficial to humans, cannot be rationally justified to be morally acceptable. I do not claim that it is our responsibility to treat every animal as if it were human since this would be detrimental to modern medicine, agriculture, and human health. This is especially true in babies who cannot survive on a vegan diet due to a lack of many vital nutrients (Planck, 2007). What I do conclude is that we must treat cognitive nonhuman animals with much more morally relevancy and not abuse these beings for our own petty gains. To judge different species by different standards is an unjustified practice and a problem that must be more seriously addressed.
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. Throughout centuries, medical research has been conducted on animals.