More handpicked essays just for you.
Animal rights philosophy arguments essay
Animal rights philosophy arguments essay
Animal rights philosophy arguments essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. Singer suggests that while everyone is created equal, not everyone has the exact same rights. For instance, while men and women are equal, the right of women to have an abortion does not mean men have the right to an abortion since they do not need have the ability to given birth. From this, it follows that while animals do not have the ability to comprehend rights, such as the right to vote, they do have rights. Singer states “Surely every sentient being is capable of leading a …show more content…
Cohen proposes that rights are a claim that must be exercised, and since animals cannot exercise their rights they cannot have rights. Furthermore, Cohen suggests in order to have rights, “the holder of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves” and thus must have a “moral capacity” (817). Hence, it follows that animals cannot have rights since they lack a free moral judgment and are thus are unable to understand morality or laws that govern society. Therefore, Cohen believes rights can only be given to those able to claim
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
Vivisections, medical research that harms the research subject without providing any benefits to them, is supported by philosophy professor R.G Frey on the basis that the using and killing of animals is morally permissible because humans' quality of life exceeds animals' quality of life. Frey does not disregard the fact that vivisections harm animals, he sees no difference in the pain felt by humans and animals; nonetheless, Frey does not believe that all members of the moral community have lives of equal value. He believes that sacrificing the lives of those with less value is better than sacrificing the lives of those with higher values. Therefore, Frey defends the act of vivisections on the basis that humans' lives are of greater moral value
In his paper “All Animals Are Equal”, Philosopher Peter Singer argues for an egalitarian view on the concept treatment for animals. This paper will explore the implications of his argument and seek to counter an objection one may have to his view. His argument bases itself in the basic principle of equality. The argument is that the basic principle of equality states that the interest of all being must be taken into account and considered as equal to all other beings
The keys idea of this was animal captivity which is at peak publicity with many individuals and group revolting against the treatment of animals in zoos who belong in the wild. People often visits zoos and just enjoy the animals without giving much thought to where they came from and who they belong to. Some animals are taken from their natural habitat and put in environments that are different to their previous surroundings. Although zoos do their best to provide for the animals, I wanted to write from the point of view of the giraffe as he moves from his home and loses part of his family. In modern day, money is often the main consideration in animals, therefore their wellbeing is often ignored if money can be generated at their expense.
Within the guidelines of utilitarianism, Singer’s approach appears to harmonize, as he believed the goal in life should be to attain happiness and when the desirable level is reached, one should pay it forward. However, to the dismay of many, he believed that one born to pain and suffrage could not reach such pleasure therefore, had nothing to contribute to the environment and hence, such a life need not be continued and such a life furthered, would only be a strain on happiness. Singer’s judgement on moral behavior was that bringing pain into the world would only consume positive energy and could not further the benefits of happiness as, it is absent. In thinking that one’s existence should benefit environmental ethics as a whole or to those who need it most, Singer has said, “It is not enough that an environmental policy conform to the principles of some or other environmental ethic, it should conform to the correct, or best justified, one.” (p.285) Singer is also inclusive to animals within his statement as he considered animals just as equal in nature as humans. Essentially, he had a vision of animals being free from cruelties and exploitations such as factory farming. Extending happiness, to him, was meant only for people and creatures that could share it and, in accordance to his philosophy, deserved it in efforts to amplify well-being. Singer’s morally confusing ethics have added a unique wing in the developments of environmental ethics that, if anything, indulge in daring thoughts and help refine the purpose of
I, therefore, feel that Peter Singer’s argument on “All Animals Are Equal” is true and that the equality of consideration can and should lead to equal treatment among those animals
Manipulation of language can be a weapon of mind control and abuse of power. The story Animal Farm by George Orwell is all about manipulation, and the major way manipulation is used in this novel is by the use of words. The character in this book named Squealer employs ethos, pathos, and logos in order to manipulate the other animals and maintain control.
Cohen explains that neither right nor wrong has a right against the other. Rights are of the highest moral consequence, but animals are amoral, they do no wrong ever, because in an animal’s world, there are no rights. Cohen explains that a lion has the right to kill a baby zebra left unintended for the sake of her cubs but us humans have no right to intervene. Cohen states rights are universally human; they arise in a human moral world, in a moral sphere. Rationality isn’t the issue; the capacity to communicate is not at issue, nor is the capacity to suffer, an issue; the issue is that humans project their morals onto amoral things.
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.
According to Carl Cohen, he starts out argument by establishing the differences between rights and interests, which he explains through examples and definitions. He defined rights as a valid or potential claim made by the moral agent, which also needs to have some sort of content and targets involved. He then contrasts it with interests as them holding different moral reasonings and does not always command respect. The main point he uses to explain the difference between rights and interest is that rights trumps interests always. Besides the rights and interest we may have between different individuals, there is a relationship between rights and obligations as he explains it through seven different examples. Animals do not have the same rights as humans since we are both on different moral realms, but we may have certain obligations to animals. On the other hand, his argument for proving that animals do not have rights follows:
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 pen is mightier than the sword.” This is a popular saying that explains that, sometimes, in order to persuade or convince people, one should not use force but words. In Animal Farm, by George Orwell, animals overthrow the human leader and start a new life, but some animals want to become the new leaders. To make the other animals obey the pigs, they first have to persuade the farm’s population. Squealer is the best pig for this job because he effectively convinces the animals to follow Napoleon by using different rhetorical devices and methods of persuasion.
Lastly, he argues that sentience is the only characteristic that should be considered in terms of granting animal rights. This leads him to the conclusion that “if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. The principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being”. Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”....
It is acceptable to use animals for certain human requirements such as food as long as the animal is raised in a humane way, treated in a morally permissible manner during its lifetime, and killed using a painless method. In conclusion, while human beings are given a privileged place over animals in the natural hierarchy of morally significant beings, it is not permissible to suggest that animals do not deserve moral status. Aristotle’s views that non-human animals do not possess the capacity to reason and, therefore, should be denied moral status should be disregarded in favor of Bentham’s view that non-human animals have the capability to perceive pain and pleasure, whether or not they can verbally communicate these feelings, as well as the capability of suffering. Therefore, they should be regarded in an obligatory manner and treated with moral respect or status.
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.