Animals are so often forgotten when it comes to the many different levels of basic rights. No, they can’t talk, or get a job, nor can they contribute to society the way humans can. Yet they hold a special place in their owners’ hearts, they can without a doubt feel, show their different emotions, and they can most definitely love. In recent years there has been a massive increase in animal rights awareness, leading to a better understanding and knowledge in the subject of the humane treatment of animals. Where do humans draw the line between the concern of equality, and simple survival? It’s fair to assume there should be disparity between the way cats and cows are treated, or the way chickens and dogs are. Certain animals have their place in the animal kingdom, grazing animals like cows and chickens have historically been used as a food source since the concept of animal husbandry was introduced, on the other end of the spectrum cats and dogs have been domesticated and kept as common house pets. The suggestion that livestock have the same emotions and feelings as a typical housecat can be up to debate. Peter Singer states that the behavior of some apes, dolphins and dogs suggest they have emotions and desires. All of the evidence, or the lack thereof, leads to issues concerning the ethical treatment of all animals. Consumption is one of the biggest areas of disagreement in regards to animal rights. Throughout the world there are many different laws and regulations regarding the treatment of animals. Each country has their own set of standards, many of them religious and others more along the lines of common sense. While it is normal to regularly consume cattle meat (such as cow) in America, many Hindu Indians refrain from it... ... middle of paper ... ... cancer, but don’t rub a new shampoo in their eyes, or feed them dishwashing liquid until they slowly and painfully die. 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. All it takes is one’s voice to start a movement towards finding humane ways to butcher livestock to feed families, to help build a new law that makes shelters safer and cleaner for abandoned animals to live and have a second chance, and to help make popular those companies that don’t condone animal testing.
"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.
Breeding sows are confined in gestation stalls, pigs have their tails cut off without anesthesia, calves are tethered by their necks in veal crates, and egg-laying hens are debeaked and kept in cages too small to spread their wings in; in a factory farm, animals are treated as commodities. This vivid imagery depicts the facts pertaining to animals. The search for solutions has focused on two paths; one reforming the system and instituting more humane standards, and the second promoting veganism so that fewer animals are bred, nurtured, and slaughtered. While few animal activists disagree with promoting veganism, some believe that campaigning for reforms, and humane labeling is counter-productive. Humane standards can either be required by law, or instituted voluntarily by farmers. Farmers who voluntarily agree to higher humane standards are either opposed to factory farming, or are trying to appeal to consumers who prefer meat from humanely raised and slaughtered animals. There is no single definition of “humane meat,” and many animal activists would say that the term is an oxymoron. Different meat producers and organizations have their own humane standards by which they abide. Humane standards might include larger cages, no cages, natural feed, less painful methods of slaughter, or prohibition of practices such as tail docking or debeaking. In some cases, campaigns target retailers or restaurants instead of the actual producers, and pressure the companies to purchase animal products only from producers who raise the animals according to certain voluntary standards. Societies individuality is split by advocates and opponents; is there a fine line between truth and falsehood, or is animal slaughter for diet always inhumane?
In the article, “An Animals Place” by Michael Pollan, he debates many controversial topics concerning humans and animal relationships towards cruelty and rights. Pollan begins with the discussion on whether or not animals have feelings or rights, even though the author agreed others had
Vivisections, medical research that harms the research subject without providing any benefits to them, is supported by philosophy professor R.G Frey on the basis that the using and killing of animals is morally permissible because humans' quality of life exceeds animals' quality of life. Frey does not disregard the fact that vivisections harm animals, he sees no difference in the pain felt by humans and animals; nonetheless, Frey does not believe that all members of the moral community have lives of equal value. He believes that sacrificing the lives of those with less value is better than sacrificing the lives of those with higher values. Therefore, Frey defends the act of vivisections on the basis that humans' lives are of greater moral value
a. A member of PETA, Tom Reagan, says that animal pain and suffering is part of
Most would not put animals in the same category as humans so giving them the same rights seems quite ridiculous; since humans are supposed to be seen as the alpha species. What is a more realistic term is to consider them our property, because we continue to use animal testing and think it is okay to harm these animals. In the end, animal testing and research is cruel and should be done away with. It is a proven fact that animals feel pain just like humans do. No animal deserves to have his or her life purpose be to give his or her life unknowingly for science. We must to put an end to this cruelty and torture because just like humans, animals are living beings. No matter how it is perceived, it is cruel and unusual punishment.
Animals are used today for many sources of protection, food, clothing, transportation, sports, entertainment, and labor, but millions of these animals die each year from abuse. “Most of the reasons that people give for denying animals rights are: animals do not have souls, god gave humans dominion over the animals, humans are intellectually superior to animals, humans are intellectually superior to animals, animals do not reason, think, or feel pain like humans do, animals are a natural resource to used as humans see fit, and animals kill each other” (Evans). It all started in the nineteenth century, when people began abusing animals by beating them, feeding them poorly, providing them with no shelter or poor shelter, left to die if they were sick or old, or by cruel sports. Most of the organized efforts to improve human treatment of animals all started in England. Around the 1800s, there was signs of rising concern for animal welfare in the United States.
Should animals have to go through pain and suffering? Should they have to go without food and/or water? The answer is no. Animal abuse happens everyday and it happens because people are barbarous or because they don’t know how to take the best care of an animal that they have. Whatever the reason it’s still not right and will never be okay. This paper will cover a brief history of animal abuse, the statistics, the signs of animal abuse, and what can be done to stop animal abuse. Animal abuse needs to end for the animals that can’t speak for themselves.
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...
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.
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.
As a human, we possess certain rights that protect us in society, however the animals we raise for food live under a much more complicated system that constantly changes. Americans have recently begun to protest animal treatment, especially in the meat industry. Many animal rights groups claim that animal farming is an inhuman practice that violates the rights of all living creatures. Farmers believe that animal right shouldn't change as any changes could cost them millions in new technology to safely care for the animals. The American farming industry poses several moral issues about animal rights which possess no easy solution, however new alternatives appear to have answers for this growing dilemma.
The debate of whether animal rights are more important than human rights is one that people have argued mercilessly. Some people think all animals are equal. To understand this, humans must be considered animals. Humans are far more civilized than any animal, they have the power, along with understanding to control many types of sickness and disease. This understanding that humans have, keeps them at the top of the food chain.
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.
... the world. Whether we choose to accept it or not, animals should have rights just like we do because they deserve them. They should have a right to live until they die and not to be killed, they should have a right to be treated with care and respect, and they should have a right not to end up as some people’s dinner in a cruel way. Non human animals can feel happy, pain, sadness, fear, love and even anger and so just because we have the power to completely dominate them does not give us a right not to accord them their rights, they deserve them. We are all living things, we all have fear and love, we all breath and so all of us should have rights.