For decades, animal rights activists have attempted to advocate the notion that animals, as with humans, have an implicit right to life. Such premise is reasonable and often easy to accept, especially where everyone that owns a pet knows the great sensation it is to get home after a stressful day at work and be received by your playing dog or cat. For many, it is easy to recognize that dogs and cats for example, are living and sustainable animals, and therefore, that all animals have the right to live. Unfortunately animals continue to be viewed in many circles as inferior creatures, and are often used in medical research where they are not granted any right including the right to live and their only destiny is to suffer to death. The purpose of this short-essay, is to evaluate, analyze, and assess whether or not animals have a recognized right to life, specifically within the context of biomedical research and testing.
According to many scientists and academics, any living organism can fall into the broad definition of animal, and any living organism has “a basic moral right to respectful treatment” (Dunnuck,para.2), therefore all animals have the basic moral right to a respectful treatment. For instance, the definition of animal comes from the Latin word animalis, meaning “having breath” so humans also fall into the category of animals (Cresswell). Animals that are used in research are not given any type of respectful treatment, so their most basic right is violated from the start. If humans have a right to choose to live a life without pain the same choice should be given to the animals that are used in research. Even though in the text it mentions that animals “cannot vocalize their own preferences and choices”(para.2...
... middle of paper ...
...e: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP, 1993.
2. Cresswell, Julia (2010). The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins (2 ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.ISBN 9780199547937. "‘having the breath of life’, from anima ‘air, breath, life’
3. Paterson, Charles (2002) Treblinka, Eternal. Our treatment of animals and the Holocaust, Oxford Press.
4. Ryder, Richard (2005). All beings that feel pain deserve human rights: Equality of the species is the logical conclusion of post-Darwin morality. The Guardian. Aug. 6, 2005.
5. Skidelsky, Edward (2000). Nonsense upon stilts. Animals are the last great "victim class". Edward Skidelsky finds the arguments for animal rights sentimental, self-serving and intellectually unsound. New Statesman, June 5, 2000.
6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Statistics, January 4, 2011.
18, 2015 Animal Rights The right to life, liberty and freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to be free from slavery are just some of the basic human rights. Although animals’ rights aren’t completely alike, they do exist and are similar to some human rights. Some common misconceptions are that if we don’t use animals, we would have to use humans to test drugs and that hunting is necessary for controlling animal populations. Animal rights are rights believed to belong to animals to live
A Right to a Healthy Life “Socialized Medicine.” The term throws shivers through the American population. For some this brings great joy. They see a world where they can visit a doctor and get the medicine they need for little or no cost. Others, however, see a world of rationed care and long waits for procedures. “Socialism” is the term that bothers. It sticks deep in the American psyche, conjuring up images from the Russian Revolution and George Orwell’s Animal Farm. In Animal Farm, the animals
Do animals deserve the natural rights humans have? Animals are being kept captive in science labs to test many things. In research labs they are used to test many trivial products and they are used in valuable medical research. Many animal right activists go as far as breaking the law as an attempt to get the point across about the wellbeing of animals in science labs. The welfare of animals should be considered in experiments, although they are a substantial benefit to medical research there
3. Animal Rights Many philosophers including Tom Regan and Mary Anne Warren disagree with Carl Cohen and say that animals do have rights. According to Warren’s weak animal rights position, morality and reason are maximized where no sentient creatures cane be killed without good reason. Tom Regan’s strong animal rights policy is comparatively unreasonable because it advocates for halting all killing because every sentient being has value. Prior to coming to the conclusion that animals do have rights
“The Right to Live” Among the files and photographs on the Internet are shocking and perverse things. One particular type of files are called “crush videos”. These videos show well-dressed women stomping, or crushing, small animals under their feet. These small, harmless animals should have certain living rights as living things. These rights should be extended to all animals, no matter what size, shape, or type of animal. With these rights, there are activists that are trying to get people to see
must be raised by humans to save his life, a task that would seem to be supported by all animal lovers. But, while zoo leaders prepared to help the cub, animal rights activist insists it was wrong to intervene and save the cubs life (NBC News). Animal rights activist insisted that Knut would be been better off dead than raised by humans (NBC News). "Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws," states animal rights activist Frank Albrecht (NBC News).
Animal Liberation Why is it that we as a society condemn the actions of a man against a man but very rarely a man against an animal? I think this question must be understood if we are ever to change the rights animals have. As of yet I don't believe animals have any actual rights. Rather humans have rights that involve animals. If we are to truly allow animals to have rights the same or similar to humans then we must first define what it is that makes us feel as if they are entitled to rights
Regan’s article “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs,” he explores three different philosophical “accounts” and talks about their view and stances on animal rights and the treatment of animals. The first account that Regan looks at is the Kantian account, which is that humans have obligations to treat animals right only because if humans treated animals poorly it would lead to humans treating one another poorly. Regan says this account to be amiss because it makes us assume that animal interests do not matter
imperative or goes against the respect and dignity of life would logically also violate objective moral standards and calls for the pluralist belief of standing up to evil. For an example of the application of my moral identification I will argue my stance that invasive experiments on sentient animals is morally unjustified. I will In defense of this position philosopher Tom Regan has argued that sentience should be the basis by which rights endowed (The Rights…). He argues that there are many humans who lack
and Cohen hold very different views on animal rights. While Regan says that animal cruelty is never acceptable, no matter the circumstance, Cohen states that animals do not have rights because they are not morally capable. I agree with Regan’s view on this issue because I believe animals possess their own respective place in society. Regan’s view on animal rights is much more empathetic than Cohen’s. The biggest aspect of his argument is the inherent rights view, which states that we have direct
Animal rights have been a controversial issue for decades and remain controversial today. Product testing on animals is considered wrong by many and is against animal rights, products can be made without testing on animals. Animals in zoos are looked after greatly and treated with respect, keeping them in zoos in not against animal rights. Many activists for animal rights have pets because some consider having pets as not against animal rights, the families that have pets give them homes and treat
Animal Rights Animal rights have unequivocally been a major concern amongst humans for some time now. Animal rights are based on the notion that non-human animals should be allowed to live freely: free from abuse and suffering, as humans are. The extreme issue amongst humans is whether or not non-human animals have the capacity for rationality to deserve such equal consideration. When examining the issue of animal rights, one may have come to question one’s psyche on whether or not animal rights
Humans have rights that are either natural rights or earned rights. Natural rights are rights that every person is born with and keeps throughout his life. Some of these rights include freedom of speech, the right to an attorney, and other common sense rights. Some people believe that animals do not have souls; therefore, they do not have any rights (Regan 104). On the other hand, there are earned rights like the rights given to hunters. Hunters have the right to hunt as long as they do not break
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
Introduction a. Hook: i. Animal testing is the use of animals in medical or biological studies. (Although some just use them for observation). It’s a big controversial topic because many believe that it’s not right and degrading, while many others believe that it’s necessary and is good that it’s tried on them before us. b. Thesis i. I believe that we should not use it and that animal testing is unquestionably wrong! It is not okay and it is wrong and just mean. Animals are one of the main reasons