Animals Right and Religion Analysis
In his essay “Religion and Animal Rights," the writer Tom Regan maintains the place that animals are "subjects-of-a-life”, like humans. If we value all beings regardless of the degree of human rationality that are able to act, we must also attribute to animals or as it is called non-human animals as well. All practices involving abuse of animals should be abolished. The animals have an intrinsic value as humans, and stresses that Christian theology has brought unbridled land on the brink of an ecological catastrophe.
Regan begins the essay by stating that " Not a few of people regard the animal rights position as extreme, calling, as it does, for the abolition of certain well-entrenched social practices rather than for their “humane” reform " ( Regan 619 ) . The writer also compares animal rights with humans based on extreme moral positions, such as rape, child pornography and racial discrimination, claiming that “. . . when an injustice is absolute, as is true of each of the example just cited, then one must oppose it absolute. It is not reformed, more humane child pornography than an enlightened ethic calls for: it is abolition that is required “(Regan 620). The writing is totally against hunting animals for sport, dressing in animal skins, and breeding of animals for slaughter. In his view any animal sacrifice is no different from a crime perpetuated a human being. Sacrifice any animal should stimulate the same emotional reaction that a crime a human being. This belief is considered by many as a vision "extremist” of animal rights and generally not widely accepted.
It's hard for me to read this essay and don’t be agree at least with most of what the writer states. I am aware of the great d...
... middle of paper ...
...evidence and statistics. A vegetarian diet is becoming more and more popular. Scientific data suggest a relation between vegetarian diet and reduced risk for several chronic diseases including obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and some type of cancer. All this research should make us think and confirm that God knew what He was talking about when He told us in the Bible what to eat and what no to eat.
For Christians animals “feel pain”. Ignore it would be an absurdity. They also have rights. Not surprisingly there are rules to protect animals and Christians accept them. Four major religious movements such as the Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist promote compassion, love and respect for animals. The problem is that the faithful do not always respect these provisions and transform these ideas of universal compassion so that is most suitable to their desires.
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).
...tempt to diffuse violence. To even state that mans use of animals is immoral, and to claim that we have no right over our lives and must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of beings that cannot even think or grasp the concept of morality is ridicules. We would be elevating amoral animals to a moral level that is higher than our own, thus granting animals rights is not only fictional but wrong. In the words of Mat Block “Cows or cats would eat us to if they had a chance. Do not mistake a cats respect for one that is dominate for love, they are killers plain and simple and if you do not believe me ask their friends the birds”
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
When I think about my rights, the only right I really know about is speaking my mind. I feel that in this generation, one doesn’t care about their right unless they are in danger of losing them. The one thing all human beings do know about, is respect. Regan addresses how we treat animals before we slaughter them. Before we slaughter 9 billion chickens, they live in windowless sheds that never get clean, and health wise, they have broken bones and they grow crazy fast so we can eat them faster and make room for more chickens.In the 42 million cows we kill each year, we feed them dirty and unsanitary food while also giving them antibiotics to fight off diseases, which means when we eat them/ drink the milk produced by them, we never know if we are at risk of whatever disease they have. Regan states “The fundamental wrong is
Any form of life is sacred in the eyes of God, and we as humans are taught not to destroy or harm that; "The righteous one is caring for the soul of his domestic animal, the mercies of the wicked ones are cruel." (Proverbs 12:10) The only time we are allowed to inflict harm on another animal is to provide food, as stated in (Genesis 3:21; 9:3; Exodus 21:28). Pope John Paul II offers some insight to human and animal suffering. He demonstrates that we as humans feel physical pain as well as animals, but what sets us apart is that we have the ability to question why this evil exists. Although animals do not have the intelligence to question why they are captive, we as humans realize their sadness stems from the lack of the natural experience God has created for them in the wilderness. Through Adam, Job and David we learned to understand why God makes suffering in the world. We also learned that no matter how bad a situation is, we should never reject God’s love and praise. Holding animals captive in zoo 's results in us humans rejecting God. God created us to be stewards over animals and help and aid them through his will, not through our own will of holding them captive in zoo 's. By captivity, we are rejecting a fundamental value to honor God 's will. Besides rejecting God’s will, holding animals captive makes them more aggressive toward each other and humans. This aggression forms evil when they attack. Adam Roberts, senior vice president of Born Free USA states that holding animals captive outside their natural setting results in their aggression and sadness. Human suffering throughout creation has not only brought us closer to God, it has allowed the human race to develop a deeper compassion and love for God 's wonderful works. That very love and compassion allows us to see the true beauty of animals. It is understood that not every human
“The relationship of homo sapiens to the other animals is one of unremitting exploitation. We employ their work; we eat and wear them. We exploit them to serve our superstitions: whereas we used to sacrifice them to our gods and tear out their entrails in order to foresee the future, we now sacrifice them to science, and experiment on their entrail in the hope — or on the mere off chance — that we might thereby see a little more clearly into the present.” Brigid Brophy stated this quote in The Sunday Times in the year of 1965. It is a common belief that Brophy’s article may have been the spark for the animal rights movement. The Animal Rights Movement is the social movement that I have decided to write about. It was believed to have started
There are many people out there that deny the idea that animals have inherent value and believe that only humans have inherent value. This is an anthropocentric view that believes humans have inherent value and everything else only has instrumental value as long as humans can use it. This view is what Regan says is “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us—to be eaten,
In his essay ‘Three Wrong Leads in a Search for an Environmental Ethic: Tom Regan on Animal Rights, Inherent Values, and Deep Ecology’, Partridge claims that Singer and Regan both miss a significant element to the nature of rights: they only have a moral basis, not a biological basis. For Partridge, how alike human beings and other animals are in terms of biology is irrelevant. What matters instead is that other animals show no capacities of rationality or self-conscious, which is what makes us moral. For Partridge, this consequently excludes other animals from being rights
Tom Regan's position on moral consideration toward animals is about 'animal liberation' based on animal rights. He is against animal cruelty, stands for the welfare and the protection of animals. Cruelty is wrong on all account, “morally vile for the same reasons” (Regan pg. 66). He wants to abolish not reform the human to non human relationship. Is it morally okay to inflict pain on animals? Rights outweigh the interest that someone may have. Regan believes in the moral rights which are based on the
Every so often we turn on the news and hear of an animal cruelty case, whether it be animal fighting, hoarding, malnutrition, or over-breeding. Animal cruelty is a serious issue and it was not outlawed until the 1800’s. Judaism, however, has always stressed the importance of proper treatment of animals. Unnecessary cruelty to animals has always been strictly forbidden, and in many cases, animals are supposed to be treated with the same sensitivity as human beings. In fact, the Jewish Code of Law specifically says “It is forbidden, according to the law of the Torah, to inflict pain upon any living creature. On the contrary, it is our duty to relieve the pain of any creature, even if it is ownerless or belongs to a non Jew”.
Regan’s view on animal rights is much more empathetic than Cohen’s. The biggest aspect of his argument is the inherent rights view, which states that we have direct duties to all individuals, both humans and animals, because they have rights. Regan believes that we have these direct duties to all “experiencing subjects of a life”. This entails individuals that are capable of feeling emotions and the effects of living. Such beings have
Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Call Number: HV4711.A5751992. Morris, Richard Knowles, and Michael W. Fox, eds. On the Fifth Day, Animal Rights. and Human Ethics.
Albert Einstein once said, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." As people move into a more health conscious society, vegetarianism is becoming a popular choice. While some people cannot imagine a day without meat, others are convinced that a vegetarian lifestyle is the better option. There are numerous benefits of being a vegetarian. Some of the reasons are as follows: vegetarianism has multiple health paybacks, is far better for the environment, and is morally sound. Most people believe that vegetarianism is unhealthy, goes against our natural diet, and unnecessary, however, a vegetarian diet offers many health benefits and is more ethical than an omnivorous existence.
Animals DO have feelings. They may not be able to talk and tell us where it hurts, but they do feel pain, just like humans. There are laws to protect animals, just like humans. I do not feel as though the laws are strong enough, nor are they enforced the way they should.