Argument against Animal Rights
In this world there are many moral issues that we come across in our daily life. This paper compacts with ethical and moral problems with argument on animals rights. My approach will be against animal rights. Animals are one of the integrate part in this world, they are one of the important part in the human life as well, but according to Tibor R. Machan, animals are not sort of beings with basic rights to life, liberty, and property, whereas human being, in the main, are just such beings. I am a meat lover and I get my protein and other important nutrient, along with some essential vitamins and minerals from meat. Humans are closely connected with animals. We eat animals meat for food, use their skins for clothes,
…show more content…
World is facing different kinds of dangerous disease all the time, and scientist are trying their best to come out with the right medicine and drug for the newly born diseases and those disease whose medicine has come yet like cancer. It might be dangerous to test those new drug on human beings therefore scientist uses animals for testing the drugs. Most of the important drugs has be found after using it on animal and that has saved lots of lives till now , it proves that this act of using animals for finding appropriate drugs has brought happiness in many peoples life and those medicines will continue to play vital role in humans life for a long run. Similarly, animals are used by astronomers for their research, like they send the dog in the moon, which is still one of the greatest achievement in the mankind history. Therefore, human beings should use animals for mankind benefits and experiments, for better future and better life for all the human beings.
1. Act Utilitarianism Principle
2. There is scale of importance in nature, and among all the various kinds of being, human beings are the most important-even while it is true that some members of the human species may indeed prove themselves to be the most vile and worthless, as well.(Pg. 150)
…show more content…
Animals have no rights and their interests do not count equally with those of human beings.(pg. 147)
4. One reason for the propriety of our use of animals is that we are more important or valuable than other animals and some of our projects may require animals for them to be successful. (pg.150)
5. Human beings has greater importance or value in the nature therefore we make use of other animals for our purpose. (pg.150)
6. Normal Human life involves moral tasks, and that is why we are more important than other beings in nature, we are subject to moral appraisal, it is a matter of our doing whether we succeed or fail in our lives.(pg.151)
7. The process that leads to our success involves learning, among other things, what it is that nature avails us with to achieve our highly varied tasks in life, clearly among the highly varied tasks could be some that make judicious use of animals-for example, to find out whether some medicine is safe for human use, we might wish to use animals.(pg.151)
8. There is no valid place for rights in the non-human world, the world in which moral responsibility is for all practical purposes absent. (pg.151)
9. Animals are not sort of beings with basic rights to life, liberty, and property, whereas human being, in the main, are just such beings.
"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.
Thesis statement: Nature is not only for the human race, but it provides habitat to millions of organisms and human race is just one of the organisms,
Paragraph four cites the Bibles and how it supports the author’s main claim on the use of animals for the sake of humans. It states that humans are supposed to be closer to the divine than animals due that humans were made in God’s image. Steiner also refers to the anthropocentrically thoughts of two Christian thinkers that agreed that animals have been devaluated through
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
Peter Singer’s arguments in Animal Liberation have often been misunderstood. The most mutual, and important, misunderstanding among professional thinkers consists in the belief that the moral argument advanced by Animal Liberation is created on utilitarianism, besides not, as is in fact the situation, on the belief of no maleficence. Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation is surely one of the most persuasive, powerful and efficient works of applied integrities ever printed. Since the publication of the first edition in April 5, 1973, Singer’s work has been spoken, and its main theses enthusiastically argued by others. In the essay Singer’s tone was very rational and patient,
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
believe that animals do not have the same rights as humans because they are not
...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.
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.
4. What is Animal Rights? Animal Rights is the thought of letting animals get the basic rights. They don’t want animals to be caused pain, or be exploited/killed by humans. It does not mean equality between humans and animals.
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.
We need a critique of moral values, the value of these values should itself, for once, be examined?. [What if] morality itself were to blame if man, as a species, never reached his highest potential power and splendour? [GM P 6]
Therefore, it is because of our moral duty to all other TCL’s that humans are superior to all other Teleological Centers of Life. Only humans, because of moral agency, are capable of recognizing that all TCL’s have a good of their own. Organisms that lack moral agency cannot understand or appreciate the inherent worth of other beings. As a result, they cannot adopt the attitude of respect for nature. It would be incomprehensible for a plant to understand what is good for a human. Likewise, to believe that a tree or blade of grass can respect nature in the same capacity as a human is ridiculous.
... 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.
...f with the rights of the planet and species not including humans. In other words, humans are of secondary importance to that of the natural world. There are two common views in this school of thought. The first is a weaker version that revolves around the phrase primus inter pares - first among equals – and the second version is a strong view in which environmentalists believe human are the cause of destruction. (Moseley).