Saving the Animals? In Buffalo New York on October 23rd of last year, Dr. Barnett Slepian was murdered. He wasn’t killed because of his financial status or because of a dispute he had with a patient. Someone who never really knew Dr. Slepian, someone who never met his family, a person who didn’t agree with Dr. Slepian’s job, took his life. This is a great example to show how a disagreement in ideology can lead to actions that no one has the authority to take. An animal liberator bombing a meat processing plant is like the pro-life activist killing the doctor who performs abortions. Both of the actions don’t achieve the results that are intended, they both claim that they help save the lives of the innocent, and they are both hypocritical. The results that are wanted can not be achieved through causing pain and suffering to the opposing party. When a sniper took the life of Dr. Slepian he was trying to move the cause of pro-life forward. The end result was not what he had wanted; the medical community was outraged and the people who believed in the right to choose strengthened their resolve. This quote by Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the country’s best-known pro-abortion crusader, illustrates this point very accurately. "This is a sign of the moral bankruptcy of the so-called pro-life movement. It bespeaks their frustration and rage at the fact that they have not been able to convince the public of the rightness of their cause," (Cnn 2) The frustration that Dr. Morgentaler mentions is even further enhanced when the pro-lifers see that their cause is regressing from public empathy. The example of the murder of Dr. Slepian is a good analogy to what the bombing of the meat processing plant would cause. The people in the factory would be massacred and the people who don’t support the cause of animal liberation would be outraged. The intended result of lower consumption of animal meat would not be achieved because the public would not see the righteousness of the cause; and where there is demand for meat there will be suppliers to meet the demand, this is a basic law of economics. Even if the bomber would bomb every single meat-processing plant in the country, intrepid businessmen would find ways to meet the demand in the country. Murder has always been an unacceptable action in modern society.
It is estimated that more than 1 million people die annually in the United States from heart disease and cancer combined (Leading Causes of Death). What if all of those human lives could have been saved by sacrificing relatively few animals? Conservationists and animal rights activists always have the best of intentions for animals and the environment. They believe that animals should never have to suffer because of the choices human beings make. This view can be unrealistic in many situations. Jane Goodall’s A Question of Ethics was a very emotional and Rogerian style essay, but I found it lacked the supporting facts and credibility that can be found in Heloisa Sabin’s aggressive “classic” styled essay Animal research Saves Human Lives.
Throughout history, societies have been faced with many social issues affecting their citizens. Martin Luther King Jr, a civil rights leader for African Americans, was an advocate for the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that fought to undo the injustices African Americans endure by American society in the 1960s. Martin expressed his disgust with the social inequality among citizens when saying “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (PETA). Taking the prominent leader’s words into consideration, we should progress as a society by participating in the animal rights movement that strives to extend the same compassion, felt by Martin Luther King Jr, to all living things (PETA). Popular criticisms report that animals are inferior to humans because they are a source of food, but I will argue that they are victims of social injustice. Validity for my animal rights argument will come from individual and organizational expert accounts and by Bioethicist Peter Singer, Author Francis Fukuyama, New York Time’s Mark Bittman and also Animal Rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Animal Equality, to help prove my argument. Animals are silent victims who are loudly crying out for someone to stand up for their rights; rights that can no longer be disregarded by being overlooked. It is my belief that animals should be respected, and afforded ethical and human treatment by society instead of being looked at as a source of food. In a society where animals have no voice, it is everyone’s civic duty to participate in the animal rights movement and acknowledge animals as living beings, which...
Human beings have been shown to be the cruelest animals on the planet. While other animals will kill for defense or food, humans are the only ones that inflict unnecessary cruelty onto others like they do through experimentation. Fortunately, some people throughout the years have shown sympathy towards the various animals that are tested on day after day and work to stop the atrocities committed by man. Animal rights activists and their cause can be traced back to their origins in the antivivisection campaigns of the 1900s. Both individuals and groups of people work to abrogate the abuse of animals, usually through protests. The most prominent organization that advocates for animal rights is PETA or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who have fought many battles in the war against animal cruelty. Two of PETA’s victories were in their campaigns, where they worked with several other organizations, against Gillette and Colgate for their experimentation on and mistreatment of animals. Their victory against Gillette came with, “the multinational company announcing a moratorium in December 1996 on animal testing of its ...
...he first idea to come to mind would be to prevent their pain, if animals feel pain just as much as humans, it should initiate the same immediate response. If humans choose to let this issue slide, it ultimately brings to light what we as humans truly value, whether we value convenience over humanity and common sense. We need to act now, for the sake of the animals, and for the sake of humanity.
Animal welfare assessment has been based on the five freedoms1 concept. This considered negative aspects of mental state (fear and stress) and the compromise of physical domains (nutrition, environment, health, behavior), but did not take into account any positive states [1]. Positive welfare has been gaining importance in science [2,3,4] and among public opinion in the past years [5]. As a result, the five freedoms definition started to change and included positive experiences or emotions such as satiety, vitality, reward, contentment, curiosity and playfulness as part of animal welfare [1].
Billions of animals are being slaughtered, abused, and harmed every year; causing enormous amounts of pain, suffering and distress upon them. It is wrong for humans to cause extended harm to animals for no compelling reason, for the fact that they have moral statuses. We have obligations to animals, and these are not simply grounded in human interests. However, the issues of moral status and equal consideration are far more fundamental and far-reaching in practical impact as DeGrazia have stated. (38) Animals have as much moral status and rights as humans do, and are most definitely worthy of our consideration in their lives.
Nationally, roughly four million animals are killed in shelters every year. Of these, roughly 95% of all shelter animals are healthy and treatable. (No Kill Advocacy Center). No animal should have to ever be a part of these awful statistics. What will it take to help save these innocent animals from being killed senselessly? Animal kill shelters are horrible, inhumane, and overall completely unnecessary for multiple reasons: No Kill shelters improve adoption rates, all animals lives are valuable, and No Kill shelters save more money than other shelters.
Along the list of ‘rights movements’, the animal rights movement has its place. Just as the internet has helped further the cause of the protesters of of wall street in the 2000’s and the “Black Lives Matter” movement in 2015, Animal Rights activists has flourished in the readily available spreading of information. Earthlings, an informative documentary on the suffering of animals, has more than half a million views on YouTube alone. Animal suffering stems from regions such as the industry and research and testing. The meat industry is a billion-dollar industry. Not only is it a billion-dollar industry, it’s also slaughters upwards of 10 billion animals a year. In recent years, top poultry producer Tyson has faced
Death holds a clear position for animal rights. When we kill animals we need to make regulations so that animals die a fast and painless death. By doing this will give the opportunity to those who eat meat a way of knowing it is humane. A recent study on behalf of the United Egg Producers found that three out of four American consumers (75%) would choose food products certified as protecting animal care over those that are not. The use of factory farms should be minimized to zero. This cruel and unusual punishment towards animals shows how society has come to the point to accept harsh practices.
Nationally, roughly four million animals are killed in shelters every year. Of these, roughly 95% of all shelter animals are healthy and treatable. (No Kill Advocacy Center). No animal should have to ever be a part of these awful statistics. What will it take to help save these innocent animals from being killed senselessly? Animal kill shelters are horrible, inhumane, and overall completely unnecessary for multiple reasons: No Kill shelters improve adoption rates, all animals lives are valuable, and No Kill shelters save more money than other shelters.
"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.
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A
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.
Animal welfare is a fairly recent, yet troubling argument in society. This subject is a strong argument on a variety of opinions. Animal welfare has become a major issue and has grown internationally. The human concern and the safety and rights of animals is the meaning of the concept of animal welfare. Through decades of animal welfare, people fight to prevent the action of animal cruelty and bring help towards animal rights.