More handpicked essays just for you.
Regan, T. 2017. “the radical egalitarian case for animal rights
An article on animal rights
An article on animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Do you think animals need a “Bill of Rights”?. Of course I think that they should make a Bill of Right for the animals. The reason for that is that they are been mistreated really bad. Some of the animals are been experimented and put into small cages where they can fit. They also capture them and send them to a zoo where they will get mistreated. People don’t care of them anymore, they think that they can do anything with them and they won’t feel any pain when they hurt them.
My first claim is that their is rare animals that people don’t even know about or heard off. We are hunting them or making them experiments so we can make new kind of medical research. We can say that they help us find new things when we do experiments on them, but we are
…show more content…
This Bill of Right might not protect every animal because other countries might not like the sound of this Bill. This Bill of Right is going to help manly dogs, cats, birds, and every mammal that they get. Also millions of animals lives will be save. For that reason we should make this happen.
Why will people disagree with Bill of Right?. Well there's many reason why they will do that. Frist of all people like to eat meat which this Bill of Right will protect does animals. Second of all scientists will not have the chance to experiment on animal and they won’t get any research of them. Third of all is that people that are hurting their pets or been abused by their owners they might go to jail or even worse. These are just some basics rules that they won’t like and some of them might break those rules.
In my conclusion, I think that I made my claims pretty clear. That animals must have a Bill of Right so people won’t hurt them or abuse them. By making this statement people are going to agree and disagree with me. But I think that this Bill of Right for animals will be
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.
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 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,
believe that animals do not have the same rights as humans because they are not
For decades, mankind has used animals to progress efficiently in scientific research. Animal testing is important for medical science and other beneficial experiments. Many citizens criticize scientists for testing on animals for unnecessary means other than medical research. Many of today’s current vaccines and disease treatments would have been delayed without the use of animals. People across the globe have been saved through organ transplants by persistent research on animals. Many material products and medical accomplishments people take for granted wouldn’t have been possible without animal testing.
Our advancements in science have enabled us to create other things that we can test on, instead of harming innocent animals. Since experiments are cruel and expensive, “the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying
"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.
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). Here is a quote from the PETA celebrity spokesman, Bill Maher "To those people who say; My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say 'Yeah, well good for you. This dog died so your father could live. "Sorry , but I am just not behind that kind of trade off." What kind of attitude is that? Perhaps the people who feel this way should have no more rights than an animal. That is cold, that a person could say that. Human life is the most valuable to God or he wouldn't have given us the means to protect and preserve our rights.
The deployment of animals for medical research has brought heated debates from both the proponents and opponents each holding to their views in a tight manner. Those who are in support of animal research argue that it has been constituting a vital element in the advancement of medical sciences throughout the world providing insights to various diseases, which have helped in the discovery and development of various medicines that have brought an improvement in the qualify of living of people. Such discoveries have gone so deep that but for them many would have died a premature death because no cure would have been found for the diseases that they were otherwise suffering. On the other hand, animal lovers and animal right extremists hold to the view that animal experimentation is not only necessary but also Cruel. Human kind is subjecting them to such cruelties because they are helpless and even assuming such experiments do bring in benefits, the inhuman treatment meted out to them is simply not worth such benefits. They would like measures, including enactment of legislations to put an end to using animals by the name of research. This paper takes the view there are merits in either of the arguments and takes the stand a balanced approach needs to be taken on the issue so that both the medical science does not suffer, and the animal lovers are pacified, even if not totally satisfied. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The next section discusses both the sides by taking account the view of scholars and practitioners and the subsequent section concludes the paper by drawing vital points from the previous section to justify the stand taken in this paper....
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 is the notion of our time that non-human animals exist for the advancement of the human species. In whatever field -- cookery, fashion, blood-sports -- it is held that we can only be concerned with animals as far as human interests exist. There may be some sympathy for those animals, as to limit practices which cause excruciating suffering, but those may only be limited if they are brought to public light, and if legislators receive enough pressure from the public to change.
In conclusion I hope to have shed some new light on just what animal cruelty is and what it consists of. I hope that with this information people will be more open to what they see. Hopefully this information will cut down on animal abuse and will make people watch out for mistreatment of animals. I hope that people will think twice before abusing animals. Animals DO have feelings. They may not be able to talk and tell us where it hurts, but they do feel pain just like humans. There are laws to protect animals just like humans. I do not feel as though the laws are strong enough nor are they enforced the way they should.
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.
... more sense to use animals for research rather than humans. It is the way the world works, the bigger and more powerful prey upon those weaker than themselves. To break it down to the simplest terms, it is the circle of life: the use of other animals to better and prolong our own existence.
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.