Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The arguments of animal rights
Should animals have rights
Do animals deserve rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The arguments of animal rights
In 2015 there was a court case based on two chimpanzees, and if they should have the same rights as a human being. Animals having similar rights as humans is something really commonly talked about.
Animals don’t really get treated the best ways at times. In the book “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer has a good point of how equality doesn’t need similar treatment, but an equal consideration. People like Peter Singer are just not asking for animals to have an equal education, but to be truly respected as a human being. Animals are constantly being put in cages and put in harsh places during their time of being held captive. In the article “Why animal rights?” the writer explains what captive is like for these animals and how the might feel. “All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do.” the author also says “They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love.” Animals are
…show more content…
In a case between Kiko, Tommy, two chimpanzees, in the court of New York there was a lot of the main discussion on whether they should or shouldn’t get these rights. Kiko a performer knows what it is like to be held in a cage for long periods of times. If court case was won, both Kiko and Tommy would be able to develop and treated as human being. In the article “Chimps Kiko and Tommy Don’t Have Rights as People, New York Court Rules” by NBC explains how Nonhuman Rights Projects (NhRP) would help both Kiko and Tommy “Is successful in court, chimpanzees would learn the rights of personhood.” they also explain other animals “Elephants and dolphins could also benefit from these protections.” These animals would be separated from the way they lived. On June 8, 2017, Kiko and Tommy don’t have the same rights as humans, but the NhRP was given the grant to protect other animals that are not treated right
In the article you published called “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin states “Many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined.”. I agree and believe society should be more involved into the way we do things that involves animals. We need to be more aware about the animals and that they have feelings and emotions too and we should not be taking advantage of that. Rifkin stated a lot of good points and arguments. I honestly do not agree we should end all animals deaths, but I do believe there should be an awareness against animal cruelty.
Peter Singer’s arguments in Animal Liberation have often been misunderstood. The most mutual, and important, misunderstanding among professional thinkers consists in the belief that the moral argument advanced by Animal Liberation is created on utilitarianism, besides not, as is in fact the situation, on the belief of no maleficence. Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation is surely one of the most persuasive, powerful and efficient works of applied integrities ever printed. Since the publication of the first edition in April 5, 1973, Singer’s work has been spoken, and its main theses enthusiastically argued by others. In the essay Singer’s tone was very rational and patient,
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.
In today’s day and age humans find themselves as being higher up in the hierarchy for decent reason. This leads to the issue of whether human beings are worth more than animals and animal suffering. While humans possess the moral capacity to understand moral thought, an issue rises with this. Does animal suffering, if we choose to assume that as moral agents human beings are obligated to include animal suffering in our choices such as Peter Singer speaks of in his essays on animal equality, become less important when used to progress science and perhaps human well-being? On the most basic thought processes most people would say yes because humans are more important than animals. Though looking deeper makes it harder to determine the morality
“... the right question for animals is not ‘Can they reason?’ ‘Can they talk?’, but ‘Can they suffer?’ ”
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.
Opposites attract. James Hilton uses this fact in Goodbye, Mr. Chips to create tension in the story; however, he makes greater use of this polarization to develop the character of Chips. Mr. Chips and Katherine Bridges may be viewed not only as opposites but also as arguments. Hilton uses thesis in the form of young Chips and antithesis in the form of Katherine Bridges to arrive at synthesis, the personality and character of the mature schoolmaster.
Pierce, Jessica. "Emotional Pain in Animals: An Invisible World of Hurt." Emotional Pain in Animals: An Invisible World of Hurt. Sussex Publisher, 24 Apr. 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
Animals can be a man's best friend; however, they can also be ones worst enemy after passing certain boundaries. Peter Singer who wrote Animal Liberation gave valid points in my opinion because animals do have a right to live and we should give them their space. Humans take everything for granted and never seem to learn until it too late. Today slaughterhouses are abusing animals in disturbing ways which has to change. I will agree with Singers concepts on animals because they have a right to live a peaceful life like humans; they have a life ahead of them once they are born. Singer argues that animals should have their interests considered throughout their lives. Singer wants to eliminate speciesism from our thoughts which is, a human discriminatory belief that all other animals are not as good as them therefore they do not have rights and we could do what we want to them. We should not be the only types of "animals" in this earth who has a set of rights we should abide.
"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.
Animals are not equal to humans. There are those who will still fight for animal rights, but one might wonder if this issue isn't just an excuse for some twisted person to do bodily harm to another. " Brian Cass.was left with a three-inch head wound after the attack" (Cass).
Animals should not be kept in captivity for any reason unless they have been harmed and need to receive treatment but they should be released as soon as they are healthy and capable of taking care of themselves again. The use of a captive animal for research, education, or entertainment is just wrong no creature deserves to have their life taken away for our benefit. Would you want to be captured and put in a tiny box or a fake little ecosystem, or abused and tortured because apparently that’s the only possible way to train an animal? How about just knowing that your real life is over and now all you get to do is put on a show for people? That is what we put these animals through for our entertainment we tear children away from their parents. In what way is that right? It’s just like kidnapping we put humans in jail for that but only when it’s another human. People act like just because they aren’t human that its ok and they lie to themselves telling themselves that its okay and that the animal will be taken care of, fed, and have a nice little “fake” forest or desert to live in. Just think of it as having a zoo full of humans, or stealing other humans to make profit or teach someone something new by doing something totally wrong and unethical.
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.
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.
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...