Have you ever wondered how the world would be if animals had a voice? Some have great intelligence already but imagine with the ability to speak they will evolve into a new species. Animals have many similarities with humans. For example they think, feel, and live exactly like people. The only difference that there maybe is speech. Animals can only do so much when they are trying to communicate. For example, they whimper, growl, or bark when they are in pain. Animals cannot tell a person if they are in pain or if they are unhappy. That is why humans have to be the voice for animals. While exploring these things, I agree with Tom Regan that animals should have rights.
I agree with John Stuart Mills when he states that we have first find the
…show more content…
have in common with each other is animals. It is more like humans depend on animals rather than the other way around. If people take animals for granted, sooner or later there may be no animals to depend on. According to Adaptt “More than 150 billion animals are slaughtered every year” (No author). The question is why? Why are innocent animals being killed? The reason is selfishness and the thought of being superior. Some people may believe that humans are superior to animals. That since they are superior, animals do not have a right in anything. Even though animals also feel emotions, thoughts are going through their head, and they live a life. Animals do not like being caged up, poked by needles, or being abused emotionally and physically. Human babies do not know how to talk yet, they don’t think of consequences yet, and they are helpless during the first year. However, no one has ever thought on experimenting on babies or no one has ever put a babies in a cage to amuse other people. Even though babies do not have a voice yet, they have their parents be their voice for them. If experimenting or abusing babies is seen as inhumanly then experimenting or abusing animals should also be seen as
One of the most controversial topics that every linguist is faced with is whether or not animal language should be considered a language or not. There are many different facts that can either prove or disprove the claim that animal language is not truly a language. Before one can begin to discuss whether or not animal language is a language or not, there needs to be an understanding of what animal language is. Animal language is basically the animal’s ability to communicate with one another. Where the controversy of this topic comes to play is that no one can make a clear definite decision on whether or not animal language should be considered a language.
We brutally inflict pain upon the animals, not exclusively in the final moments as they are being slaughtered, but for the most part, during their entire life. Many animals know nothing other than a life in a dark, crowded barn or factory treated as meat before they are even killed. These terrible conditions blatantly show that we do not care about these animals and we simply rear and kill them in order to satisfy our trivial interests. The cruelty imposed upon these helpless animals is shocking and it is not rare for people to turn a blind eye to the brutality. Another commonplace would be for a meat consumer to say that humans are “ends in themselves, while everything other than a person can only have value for a person” (C. Vlastos). People believe that animals are on this earth simply for human consumption, which can be easily
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...
The idea of we killing each other for food or survival makes us animal rather human is seen in Elie Wiesel's memoir Night. The book night in a nutshell is about Elie as a teenager, born in the town of Sighet, was taken away from home and soon get separated from his mother and siblings but stays with his father. Later throughout years, they face many challenges and Elie, for the most part, was taking care of his father. We can see in the book Night that men were fighting in the train carts for pieces of bread tossed at them. “And the spectators observed these emaciated creatures ready to kill for a crust of bread. A shadow threw itself over him. Stunned by the blow, the old man was crying: ’Meir, my little Meir! Don’t you recognize me…you’re killing your father…I have bread…for you too…for you too…’” (Wiesel, 101). The men on the train were ready to kill each other for food. Those guys near death, had only one thing in mind and that is to survive which means eat the bread but fight off other hungry people in the same train cart. Those guys are no longer humans but rather animals beca...
Over 2 million animals are killed every year, almost all of these animals had never felt the embrace of a loving person. Animal rights are very conservational because some people think animals are things, they do not see them as living beings, and just see them as if they are just something that can be replaced. Everything done to animals have emotional effects on them and they are not things that just do not feel pain. Animals should have similar rights as humans because animals feel pain just as much as humans do, have emotions just as humans, and they have things that humans have.
The animal rights movement is trying to get people to see exactly how animals have been treated. Most people see animal cruelty as “…unspeakable acts perpetrated by warped individuals mostly against dogs, cats, birds, and sometimes horses” (Munro, 512). Once seeing how countless animals have been treated, numerous people across the world are joining the cause to help these poor “nonhuman animals”. One reason that supports that animals deserve rights is that “non-human mammals over a year of age have mental capacities for memory, a sense of future, emotion, and self-awareness to a certain extent” (Dog˘an, 474). With this reasoning, animals have enough mental capacity to be considered subjects of life, and therefore deserve rights to support this thesis. Another reason states that “rights are defined in terms of capability of having interests” (Dog˘an, 481). Animals show an interest in living. As stated, “[a]nimals have a natural motive to live…[e]very day, they practice caution and care necessary to protect themselves. Their bodies are likewise structured for survival” (Dog˘an,
Billions of animals are being slaughtered, abused, and harmed every year; causing enormous amounts of pain, suffering and distress upon them. It is wrong for humans to cause extended harm to animals for no compelling reason, for the fact that they have moral statuses. We have obligations to animals, and these are not simply grounded in human interests. However, the issues of moral status and equal consideration are far more fundamental and far-reaching in practical impact as DeGrazia have stated. (38) Animals have as much moral status and rights as humans do, and are most definitely worthy of our consideration in their lives.
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).
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.
Make your voice heard as a human race our job is to protect what is theirs. Those without a voice are the people’s responsibilities to protect. Animals provide us with food, clothes, companionship, and beauty. One of the endangered species has been killed for their ivory. The Asia...
Our case is that if we don’t test on animals then progress in scientific fields would be halted. As first speaker for the negative I will speak about the benefits of animal testing in general and then I’ll talk in detail about animal testing in medicine. My second speaker will talk about the opinions on testing and the food chain and my third speaker will summarise our points and rebut.
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?
However, it is the purpose of this essay to convince the reader otherwise. The question at hand is: do animals deserve rights? It must certainly be true. Humans deserve rights and this claim is made on numerous appeals. Of one of the pertinent pleas is made on the claim that humans can feel emotions. More importantly, that humans are capable of suffering, and that to inflict such pain is unethical. Those who observe the tortures of the Nazi Concentration Camp are instilled with a humane creed held for all humans. But if there is no significant gulf between humans, that is to say there is no gulf based on skin color, creed, or gender that will make one human more or less valuable than any other, then by what right can a gulf be drawn out between humans and our fellow creatures? The suffering of humans is why we sympathize with each other. Since animals suffer, they deserve our sympathy.
It is not difficult to see that humans are humans and animals are animals. There are no relevant differences that justify differences in treatment. Animal rights opponents have consistently failed to support the differences in treatment of humans versus animals with relevant differences in capacities. Yes, an animal is an animal, but it can still suffer terribly from our brutality and lack of compassion.
Throughout the history of the world, there have been subjects of heated debates; there are a few facts that are undisputed. One of the undisputed facts is that animals existed and inhabited the planet before humans did and humans have been dependent on animals for thousands of years. Animals have played a very vital part in our history and one wonders whys should they be treated with much cruelty. While animals have been a great resource, a steady supply of food and clothing and even security, our treatment towards them has become nothing short of appalling. Since humans are dependent on animals for their well being, their comfort and at times their religion, there should be a moral obligation to treat animals.