Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism and animal rights
Essays on protecting endangered species
Efforts taken to protect endangered wildlife
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Utilitarianism and animal rights
Many people think that animals lives don’t matter. From PETA’s article “Why animal rights” says “Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being’s rights, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’””. Really, just because they didn’t invent corn dogs doesn't mean they don’t matter. Animal rights is about animals being treated better. Just because they don’t have a purpose to humans, doesn't mean that they don’t matter. They wouldn’t be animals if they weren’t alive. And i’m pretty sure you don’t want your life to end for no reason. So wouldn’t animals. Imagine this: you get thrown into this large truck. You get driven to a large
building and you get killed. They then skin you and use your flesh to make hot dogs or other food products. I bet you wouldn’t like that. Well, animals are being treated like that every day. That is why animal rights is so important. If something is living, then it should be able to have rights. And it’s not just animals that provide food that is abused. It is also our beloved companions! In five states, animals abuse is just meh. Here are those states: Idaho, Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi and North Dakota. According to NBCnews.com: “People in these states aren’t more likely to mistreat their animals, says Stephan Otto, ALDF’s director of legislative affairs and author of the report, but the laws haven’t caught up with society’s values”. Like he said, it’s not like people abuse their pets more, it’s that the government just lets people get away with it. And it is those things that people are standing up against.
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.
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.
Animal rights has been a great controversy for a long time. This topic is talked about in Tom Regan’s article entitled, “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” and Linda Hasselstrom’s piece titled “The Cow Versus the Animal Rights Activist”. Each author debates how human benefits defend the killings of animals. Regan argues that harming animals is unjust. Hasselstrom believes that animals can be killed to benefit humans and still be loved with care. Both authors use ethos, pathos, and logos in different and similar ways.
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. If they keep the animals, then the animal will be treated as a pet or
Most of modern societies nowadays have laws protecting animal rights; however, there are countries where animal rights do not exist or are protected. Cape Verde and many other third world countries, do not have any laws that protect animals rights. Cape Verde is an under development country, composed by ten islands, situated in the west coast of Africa. Majority of its territory is rural, and its citizens treat animals more as a property than anything else. I was born and lived in Cape Verde, as a child I was not very social, and my parents were always at work; in order, to solve the lonely and antisocial problem, my dad gave me my first dog, she was my best friend for
"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.
One of the biggest arguments that animal lovers use is the idea that animals are equal to humans, and that we have no right to euthanize anything. Unfortunately for them, we are not equal to animals. We have much higher brain/mental capacities as well as better means of communication and the actual ability to euthanize other populations. There are many people who have not done their research on the issue/do not contribute any help whatsoever to it, but still choose to complain about animal overpopulation and how it is unfair to kill animals so regularly. They believe that the rate of saved animals should outweigh the rate of animals being euthanized.
animal welfare controversy is the question of whether humans have the right over animals or if the animals themselves have rights.This questions fuels countless other debates regarding animals. This would mean that humans would not have ownership over animals in any way. No use of them for food, clothing, experimentation, companionship, or any interference what-so-ever. To claim that man 's use of animals is immoral… “ is to elevate moral levels of an animal higher than ourselves”, which is a flagrant contradiction (Locke 132). Animals should not be given a higher moral standing than humans. Animal rights are completely based on this one thought. In general animal welfare claims that animals are below humans, giving humans ownership and more rights than animals. Many do not understand the “rights” being discussed. The “rights” that people continue debating about are not the right to vote, freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms. It is the right to not be taken for food against your will, be used for clothing or experimentation without consent. Animals do not have the moral capacity to obtain these rights and freedoms. To elevate animals to equality with humans by applying human interpretations of morality. Author John Katz was sent a letter by an animal rights activist asking him to change his upcoming book to call humans animal “guardians”, instead of his frequently used label as “owner” (Katz 74). Showing that these activists do not believe we as humans should not have ownership over animals, but more of a shared living environment where everyone and everything is
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.
Animals are so often forgotten when it comes to the many different levels of basic rights. No, they can’t talk, or get a job, nor can they contribute to society the way humans can. Yet they hold a special place in their owners’ hearts, they can without a doubt feel, show their different emotions, and they can most definitely love. In recent years there has been a massive increase in animal rights awareness, leading to a better understanding and knowledge in the subject of the humane treatment of animals. Where do humans draw the line between the concern of equality, and simple survival?
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.
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.
... the world. Whether we choose to accept it or not, animals should have rights just like we do because they deserve them. They should have a right to live until they die and not to be killed, they should have a right to be treated with care and respect, and they should have a right not to end up as some people’s dinner in a cruel way. Non human animals can feel happy, pain, sadness, fear, love and even anger and so just because we have the power to completely dominate them does not give us a right not to accord them their rights, they deserve them. We are all living things, we all have fear and love, we all breath and so all of us should have rights.