But, in the view of a religious standpoint, animals were put here for our benefit. Humans are not used to find cures for animals because we value the human life more so than animals. Even in the case of religion, animals do have respect but are under us humans. Animals should have certain rights, but should not be equal. Granted, killing animals is wrong, we do it in order to
"In "All Animals Are Equal," Singer argues for the equality of all animals, on the basis of an argument by analogy with various civil rights movements, on the part of human beings. How does this argument go exactly, and what is Singer's precise conclusion? Is his argument successful? Why or why not? If you think it is successful, raise a residual potentially damaging objection, and respond on Singer's behalf (i.e., as a proponent of the position).
Animals have Rights? “Human rights” are typically depicted as a person’s undoubted eligibility to live a life fulfilled with complete comfort and utter safety. Should this same concept be applicable to the lives of animals? Author and columnist, Sam Vaknin, writers “Whether a Right or Not, Animals Should Be Treated Morally” in hopes to persuade online readers that “ ‘Animal Rights’ is a catchphrase akin to ‘human rights’” (Vaknin). Vaknin claims that “…except the right to free speech, all other rights could be applied to animals” (Vaknin).
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.
Man created our human rights of people and it is only man that uses this concept. The human race needs to have the obligation to set limits for animal rights. The development of rights for our animals should be an effective and a possible concept that can legally be looked at. We must set a guideline for legal limits to humans when it comes to animals and their rights. If not then there can be no way to prosecute legal issues that arise for those who overstep the limits.
As the reader, I took this as Kant saying that animals do not think like humans when it comes to repentance and compensation, and humans need to respect animals for their way of thinking and not take advantage of them for their lack of understanding. He then provides a quote from Aristotle, the exact contrast of his first quote that describes nonhumans as nothing but an existence for the good of the man in regard to his needed services and food. He then emphasizes the wild ones to take priorit... ... middle of paper ... ...le in freedom to the human rights system. If only all humans could recognize that we are truly treating animals today like we did in the years of civil rights for African Americans. Forcing animals to live in horrible conditions until they are slaughtered for cheap meat, in my opinion is truly comparable.
These include size, status, strength, and ability. Sometimes, one who is against animal rights will take the attitude that “God gave them [animals] to us to use.” What these researchers fail to recognize is PAIN. All creatures are capable of feeling pain. If a creature is capable of experiencing the pain then they too can wish for the pain to end. That right, along with many others, of animals is being denied to them even as we speak.
Should people fight for it because animal is suffering a lot? It is explained and thought that by some animals do not feel pain or loss as humans and people do, so humans have to kill animals for food or other uses, then this is physically acceptable. More so, human do not think this influence stand for and up to the animal’s rights. To start in on it has been performed on many Opportunities by stealthy television in laboratories. Animal rights groups feel that animals feel as much pain as humans do, and they suffer when they are kept in cages for long periods of time.
Even though this equal treatment only takes place when like relevant interest are considered, the fact that it takes place at all signifies that animals are worth for them selves to some degree. Otherwise they would not have interests at all and we would not have to consider them and how they are affected by our actions. Hence, is it not an ethical position to say that we can achieve the demanded moral equality through equal consideration without equal treatment for animals. Singer’s argument is constructed around the principle of equal consideration of interests. According to Singer the principle demands moral equality for non-human animals; though it is said that equal consideration of like relevant interests does not entail equal treatment.
Another problem is when you get near the top of the steps you hit a point where you should look at things threw an egalitarian point of view. Which can bring you back to where you started from because you are supposed to respect everything which intern you end up respecting nothing. In conclusion do to the arguments I have shown, we can conclude the existence of animal ethics depends on the existence of environmental ethics. I have shown this by demonstrating the individualistic ways in which Singer, Regan and Taylor look at this world will only save the rights of animals , and the world can not survive with just animals. I have also shown that by demonstrating the holistic views of Leapold, Westra, and Naess will preserve the rights of the environmental as a whole.