The article mainly focuses on this issue, not mentioning the aspects of animal rights. The authors argue their points well but can have counter-arguments against some
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 are ethical.
The brain-child of Jeremy Bentham, utilitarianism is widely recognized, even by non-utilitarians like Martha Nussbaum, as having “contributed more than any other ethical theory” to the propagation of the animal rights movement and the “recognition that animal suffering is evil” (Wolfe 2008, 12). Predicated upon consequentialist ethics, utilitarianism holds that actions are morally right to the extent that they maximize happiness for the greatest number of persons, and wrong to the to the extent that they result in unhappiness for the greatest number of individuals (Mill 1879, 11). While deriding the so-called “ancient jurists”, who degrade animals into a “class of things”, Bentham’s school of utilitarianism provides a weak foundation for both human rights and “animal rights” (Steiner 2005, 163). Unlike both Christian theism and deontology, which recognize the fact that individuals are ends and not merely means, utilitarianism conceives of individuals, whether human or animal, as means that can be sacrificed upon the altar of utility. Hence, as many animal rights proponents recognize, utilitarianism “seems to have no way to rule out, on grounds of basic justice, the great pain and cruel treatment of some animals” (Wolfe 2008, 10). Even if modern utilitarians like Peter Singer state that “any rights possessed by all human beings, those rights are also possessed by non-human animals”, such “rights” essentially amount to nothing (Singer 1987, 3). Since utilitarians believe that “what is right or wrong depends on consequences”, and rights, by definition, require that the individual interest be protected “even if the consequences would weigh against that protection”, utilitarians generally reject the existence of rights (Francione 2010, 35). Additionally rejecting any sort of innate human
Wyckoff, Jason, and M.A Bertz. "The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? - By Gary L. Francione & Robert Garner." Journal of Applied Philosophy 28.4 (2011): 414-16. Print.
I will argue that it is a better option for humans to not accept the doctrine of Animal Rights, and I will offer three reasons to support this claim. Firstly, Animal Rights can be limiting to the advancement of human health. Secondly, there are alternatives to accepting the Animal Rights. Finally, Animal Rights does not support animal control, which is important for sustaining the ecosystem. The second point will be discussed as an extension of the first point.
Frey, R.G. "All Animals Are Not Equal."Animal Rights:Opposing Viewpoints. Leone,Bruno, Series Ed. San Diego, CA. Greenhouse Press.1996.
Regan talks about how some animals are being killed and beaten, but he does not expand past describing a few animal cruelty situations. By humans controlling the lives of many animals in this world, I think humans violate animal’s moral rights and also their inherent value because they cannot live a life that is better or worse for themselves. This is true for the reason that many humans see animals merely as a mean, which means that they do not care for the life of an animal and therefore do not treat them with any value compared to the way they treat humans. Nevertheless, I agree with Tom Regan’s plan to bring light to the conversation of animal rights by acting today and speaking for the animals because they cannot speak for themselves and without humans speaking for them, rights for animals will not ever happen. Moreover, I agree with many of the points that Tom Regan made in his article “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs,” but I conclude for his argument about animal’s rights to be strong all around, he would need to make sure to broaden the variety of animals that he is talking about being restrained and killed by humans. In conclusion, I believe that if one animal has rights, then EVERY animal should have rights. If Regan was to talk more about the life of controlled animals, he would really be able to show that humans are taking away the basic rights that animals should have, uniform to
There are many people out there that deny the idea that animals have inherent value and believe that only humans have inherent value. This is an anthropocentric view that believes humans have inherent value and everything else only has instrumental value as long as humans can use it. This view is what Regan says is “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us—to be eaten,
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,
Most people would agree that animals have some kind of moral status. This presents a shift of view from past that animals had no moral status and respecting them was merely for protecting human property. Today, this question has evolved to how much moral status and what right animals have. (HOPES, 2010)
In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.
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 duties to all individuals, both humans and animals, because they have rights. Regan believes that we have these direct duties to all “experiencing subjects of a life”. This entails individuals that are capable of feeling emotions and the effects of living. Such beings have
Every so often we turn on the news and hear of an animal cruelty case, whether it be animal fighting, hoarding, malnutrition, or over-breeding. Animal cruelty is a serious issue and it was not outlawed until the 1800’s. Judaism, however, has always stressed the importance of proper treatment of animals. Unnecessary cruelty to animals has always been strictly forbidden, and in many cases, animals are supposed to be treated with the same sensitivity as human beings. In fact, the Jewish Code of Law specifically says “It is forbidden, according to the law of the Torah, to inflict pain upon any living creature. On the contrary, it is our duty to relieve the pain of any creature, even if it is ownerless or belongs to a non Jew”.