Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Animal experimentation ethical treatment
Equality in animal rights essay
Equality between humans and animals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Animal experimentation ethical treatment
There have been many attempts to validate the case against animal rights. It has been perceived that humans are separate beings from animals not only on a physical level, but also through rational autonomy and morality. There is a forgotten aspect in this argument though. Within society there are many people who do not have these qualities, including the mentally disabled and babies (Singer). This creates the assumption that to consider animals deficient of rights is to insinuate that the mentally disabled and babies are void of rights as well. Through this it can be assumed that the argument goes even further to say that babies and the mentally disabled are not human.
The basis of the argument is that because animals do not have rational autonomy and the ability to make moral decisions they do not have rights. Through the use of this position the argument further explains that it is in the human race’s best interest to test on animals. This utilitarian view, which is sacrificing one to save the many in order to advance, is thought to be a better alternative to sacrificing no one. As a result of this belief it is assumed in this argument that it is human kind’s obligation to sacrifice animals to animal testing for the benefit of humans. This argument creates the assumption that animals are not to be granted equal consideration to humans.
If this argument is to be carried out within society it must be considered equally implemented between organisms with the ability to have rational autonomy and morality, and the organisms unable to have rational autonomy and morality. It is said in the argument that all humans have the ability to be independent and moral, so it must be understood that babies and the mentally disabled are not hu...
... middle of paper ...
...d are not considered void of moral rights then it is impossible to state that animals are. In conclusion it can be assumed that animals deserve equal consideration just like humans; because the issue of what moral rights certain humans deserve can still be disputed. Although animals do not have the cognitive ability to be rationally autonomous or moral they are still a living organism and deserve rights just as much as babies or the mentally disabled.
Works Cited
Cohen, Carl. "The Case Against Animal Rights." The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader In Ethics And Literature. By Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn. Fourth ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.
Singer, Peter. "Animal Liberation: All Animals Are Equal"" The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader In Ethics And Literature. By Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn. Fourth ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.
Secondly, Regan introduces a second view, known as contractarianism. Although he suggests many flaws in this view, he also agrees that it somewhat supports his view of inherent value. This particular view identifies that since humans have the capability of understanding rules, they are capable of accepting and practising moral doings, and avoiding immoral acts. Thus, humans beings have every right to be treated with respect. Regan explains that this is problematic, because children are not necessarily capable of the same level of thinking as adults, meaning that the view mentioned above cannot be applied. Inspite of this, children do have every right to have protection, simply because they have parents or guardians that take on this so called "contract". Regan argues that if this is the case with children, then why cannot animals also have a contract?, as they do not also have the same level of thinking as an average adult. Nonetheles...
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
...nimal rights yet I do question myself where to draw the line. I do not condone violence or harm against animals, yet I shudder at the thought of a mice plague and feel saddened by the extinction of our native animals by ‘feral’ or pest species. Is it right to kill one species to save another? I am appalled by the idea of ‘circus’ animals yet I will attend the horse races every summer for my entertainment. I think Tom Regan’s argument and reasoning for animal rights was extremely effective at making whoever is reading the essay question his or her own moral standards. Reading the essay made me delve into my own beliefs, morals and values which I think is incredibly important. To form new attitudes as a society it is important we start questioning how we view the lives of others, do we see animals as a resource to be exploited or as equals with rights just like we do?
---."The Theos-Rights of Animals." Animals and Christianity. Ed. A.Linzey et al. New York: Crossroad, 1990.
Animal testing is an immoral, heinous, atrocious act. One should never put an animal before his own life; we are all here on earth due to some strand of evolution or the other, making prejudice and other discriminations (man or not) obsolete and meaningless. Those who would think themselves above another creature are each failures in their own individual way. The rights of animals cannot be questioned, it is an inalienable fact that most do not understand, when given thought that is free of bias and the plague of arrogance, as Arthur Schopenhauer once said: “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.” In a society as unquestionably advanced as man, a society in which even the consumption of meat is an indulgence and in no way necessary, the duty of treating all life with anything more than a central nervous system is nothing less than a law.
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
Morrison, Nick. "Animal Rights and Wrongs." Northern Echo, 24 Feb. 2001: n. pag. elibrary. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
The Case for Animal Rights. Routledge, London-New York, 1988. Regan T. The Struggle for Animal Rights. International Society for Animal Rights.
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.
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.
Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:
A. A. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
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.
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
Nussbaum, MC 2006, ‘The moral status of animals’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 3, pp. 1-6.