Animal Rights
Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to humans. As pointed out by Jan Narveson "morality is a sort of agreement among rational, independent, self-interested persons who have something to gain from entering into such an agreement" (192). In order to have the ability to obtain rights one must be consciously able to enter into an agreement, non-human animals are unable to do so. Entering into an agreement is done so because both parties have something to gain from this understanding. Narveson's view of morality can be understood in two parts: 1.) entering into an agreement is done so for one's self-interest and 2.) they are willing and able to enter into an agreement and maintain it. This separates humans from them in that animals are unable to willingly enter into any sort of agreement or stay true to it.
Morality is a human concept, completely original and separate from the animal kingdom. Animals, as I understand, do not consider whether what they are doing is morally permissible or objectionable, they simply act without regard to the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, humans have no reason to give animals rights based on the fact that humans have little to gain from doing so. An animal is not able to enter into an agreement and thus does not deserve to gain such rights simply for existing. Only through their interaction with human...
... middle of paper ...
...As Feinberg argues, "…we do have duties to protect threatened species; not duties to the species themselves as such, but rather duties to future human beings, duties derived from our housekeeping role as temporary inhabitants of this planet…"(185). As such, animals only have value because human beings have given them worth and are not deserving of moral consideration.
Humans do not have any moral obligation to animals themselves, but rather, have a moral duty through animals to other human beings. Non-human animals are not deserving of rights because they have no ability to understand the concept of morality, or even distinguish between right and wrong. Because animals lack the ability to engage in agreements, or recognize when their rights have been violated, and possess no sense of morality they are not deserving of moral consideration from human 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.
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.
The fact that humans can take the lives of animals depicts their lack of moral value in relation to humans. However, if moral value is tied to moral rights, how does one compare the moral rights of humans and animals and why do humans possess more moral rights than nonhuman species? The main reason why some may say that humans possess more moral rights than animals is because they are not self aware and lack cognitive capacities. In Empty Cages: Animal Rights and Vivisection, Tom Regan states that those who deny animals of their rights usually emphasize on the uniqueness of human beings by stating that, "...we understand our own mortality and make moral choices. Other animals do none of these things. That is why we have rights and they do not (p. 100)." However, in The Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals by Charles Darwin, he states that animals, or at least nonhuman mammals, share the same cognitive abilities as humans. For instance, nonhuman mammals are able to "learn from experience, remember the past, anticipate the future (p.102)." Additionally, nonhuman mammals are also capable of experiencing fear, jealousy, and sadness. With these cognitive abilities, nonhuman mammals should then be qualified to obtain moral rights, which are
This view is called contractarianism. To have value there are rules and stipulations that individuals must agree and abide by, like signing a contract, only “those who understand and accept the terms of the contract are covered directly”(Regan, 16). Those who are covered directly have rights that are recognized and protected in the contract. Those who sign can also sign for others that “lack the ability to understand morality and so cannot sign the contract themselves”, but are “loved or cherished by those who can”(Regan, 16). These secondary contractors are only recognized and protected in the contract because they are of sentimental value to others. These secondary contractors would include pets and children. While these secondary contractors lack rights themselves, they are protected because they are interests of the primary contractors that do have rights. The example Regan uses to illustrate this is if someone were to kick your dog, they would be morally wrong, not because they hurt the dog, but because they kicked your property and it would upset you; the wrong is not done to the dog fore it has no moral standing, but the wrong is done to you because you have moral value. The problem with contractarianism is that moral value applies to only animals that have value to someone else. Other animals with little or no sentimental value to others, like farm animals and lab rats, have no moral rights because no one cares about
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”(Arthur Schopenhauer)
animals. If they keep the animals, then the animal will be treated as a pet or
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.
Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.
... 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.
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.
Doesn’t it kill you to see a movie and see an animal get killed or just hurt in it? Good thing that’s all special effects. Back in the day, around 1966, movies didn’t always use special effects. Khartoum, a movie based on a holy war in the Sudan desert, directed by Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, used horses a great deal, but did not use the special effects in order to not hurt the animals. Many horses died in the making of this movie, as well as others, even including a major hit, Ben-Hur. Today, there are many activist groups that fight for and about the unfair treatment and protection for animals in everyday life. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of these groups. PETA was founded in 1980, and since then has been working on getting the point across to the public that animals “are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.” (PETA: Official Page). PETA also focuses on educating policymakers and the public about the abuse of animals and making it known that animals deserve the right to be treated with respect.
To conclude this paper then, after reviewing the reasons for being opposed to assigning rights to non-human animals I am still faithfully for the idea. There is no justification for the barbaric and insensitive ways to which we have been treating the non-human animals with over the decades. As I stated before, they are living creatures just as we are, they have families, emotions and struggles of their own without the ones we inflict on them. So then where does this leave us? Of course it is a complicated mater, but none the less non-human animals should be protected with rights against them being used as machines, for food, for their skins, their wool, and all cases in which they are being abused.
Animals deserve fair and ethical treatment, however not necessarily equally. Non-human animals and humans are not one in the same, there is no way we will ever be defined and put in the same category. Humans have reference levels, the ability to reason and think logically. We have evolved to the point where we can study, contain, and determine the outcome of basically any animal on Earth, now it’s up to us to ensure they are treated fairly.
One of the greatest arguments against non human animals having rights is that they cannot speak for themselves, they cannot think and they are less human and so they can be created as such. There are flaws on this argument. Humans have an obligation to the society in a certain manor and this determines how they behave. From a young age, people are taught how to behave and act in a certain way and animal neglect and cruelty goes against the basic principles we are taught as children. Secondly, In addition, opponents argue that rights only belong to moral agents and that animals like moral urgency. This is absurd because some animals for example primates actually think very well and this should not be used against animals being given rights. Animals may not be having self awareness and are not able to communicate well but at least they inherently have rights just because they do exist as living things and they are able to feel pain and other emotions. Their ability to suffer and feel pain gives them a right not to be subj...