The rights of Animals argument by John Feinberg is a very interesting argument as is pertains to the idea of if animals have rights or do not have rights. Feinberg argues his ultimate message which is that animals do have interests and we can’t prevent all harm, but we can take their interests into account and prevent willfully inflicted harm. He also asserts that principles of an enlightened conscience determine moral rights.
Animals must fit a couple of categories in order to qualify for having moral rights. Feinberg's argument appears to hit on the topics of three different qualifications: first, things may be in their interests if they serve the creatures' inherent ends; second, creatures can (if they possess minimal minds) take an interest in things; and finally, phenomenally conscious creatures can feel interested in things that they like. These can also be broken down into two different categories of having a right vs being able to assert one’s rights and moral standing vs moral agency, and when a right exists vs when its existence has moral relevance. These three premises are the basis of our argument.
The first premise, of having a right vs being able to assert one’s rights, is sometimes thought that animals cannot have rights because they cannot assert their rights. Infants, incompetent people, and sleeping people all have rights but can’t assert them in their condition. There is a difference between having a right and asserting that right so just because animals can’t assert their rights doesn’t mean they do not have them. In other circumstances, others can assert your rights on their behalf, but why can’t animals also have a proxy if they have the potential of having the same rights. W. D Lamont provides a convincing...
... middle of paper ...
...being violated and if they were, the animals would have no going forward with legal action to fight the injustice. So in regards to this argument, it has lead to the conclusion that individual animals have no moral rights.
Animals can also not have duties due to the obvious fact that they cannot be reasoned with, control their urges, and are un adaptable to future contingencies. If animals are unable to perform these activities, then they are also incapable of making agreements. Animals are to be protected by humans directly to their well being and not their feelings. Animals are incapable of protecting themselves from necessary danger, are incapable of making promises, and cannot be blamed for “moral failures” whereas humans can be. With this being said, animals therefore are not considered moral beings since they cannot act rightly or wrongly in the moral sense.
"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.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
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 the article Do Animals Have Rights? By Barton Hinkle he writes of a dog that was hit by a car and badly injured. The driver then proceed to cut off the dogs already injured leg and leave it out to die. Luckily the authorities were able to get to the dog in time. But this brings up the issue of what right do animals really have.The argument made against this is that rights belong to moral agents and animals lack that moral agency. This argument becomes complicated because there are animals, primates especially, that do have the ability to think. Society has a way of separating issues and problems into exceptions.
In accordance with the “rights view” moral theory, since human beings are capable of moral obligations, they have a prima facie moral obligation not to kill animals and since animals are incapable of understanding moral obligation, the animals have a prima facie moral right to live (Lehman). Prima facie is a term used when a view is considered as correct until proven otherwise. The “rights view” however does not say that humans can never kill animals. In fact, under certain conditions, prima facie moral obligations can be overridden making it morally permissible for human beings to kill animals.
Do animals have rights and moral standing? I believe that they do. Peter Carruthers does not. He is completely against the moral standing of animals. I will be explaining his views, and arguing against them showing why animals should have moral standing.
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.
believe that animals do not have the same rights as humans because they are not
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.
The article mainly focuses on this issue, not mentioning the aspects of animal rights. The authors argue their points well but can have counter-arguments against some
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.
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.
... 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.
Animals will have rights when they have the means to enforce them. They don't have the ability to reason as humans do. The human race has such a vast understanding of the necessities for all of the different species of animals to exist. Humans are far superior to any other animal because they are so advanced in technology. One advantage of advanced technology is, humans can store information as reference material. With all of this reference material humans can look back at previous mistakes so they don't do the same thing again. With this knowledge, humans can see and predict outcomes before a choice is made. Humans have the knowledge to enforce their rights, something no other animal has.