Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on animal rights
Essays on the application for utilitarian theory
Animal rights philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on animal rights
A question that has brought about varying views among philosophers is: Do animals have rights? Originating in the 19th century, the animal rights movement has created a heated debate among the human population over the well-being of non-humans. Without a defining fact that clarifies what animals are entitled to have, the beliefs of many vary. The perspectives among these activists are laid out on a spectrum that ranges from deserving the same rights as humans to not being worthy of rights at all. After reading the works of four different philosophers, it is evident that, even those who are pro-animal rights, differ in their beliefs on what these non-humans deserve to have. With close analysis, one can see where these authors agree and disagree
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).
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Peter Singer’s arguments in Animal Liberation have often been misunderstood. The most mutual, and important, misunderstanding among professional thinkers consists in the belief that the moral argument advanced by Animal Liberation is created on utilitarianism, besides not, as is in fact the situation, on the belief of no maleficence. Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation is surely one of the most persuasive, powerful and efficient works of applied integrities ever printed. Since the publication of the first edition in April 5, 1973, Singer’s work has been spoken, and its main theses enthusiastically argued by others. In the essay Singer’s tone was very rational and patient,
Cohen proposes that rights are a claim that must be exercised, and since animals cannot exercise their rights they cannot have rights. Furthermore, Cohen suggests in order to have rights, “the holder of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves” and thus must have a “moral capacity” (817). Hence, it follows that animals cannot have rights since they lack a free moral judgment and are thus are unable to understand morality or laws that govern society. Therefore, Cohen believes rights can only be given to those able to claim
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Defense of Animals. Ed. Peter Singer. New York:
In today’s day and age, meat is one of the most common portions of a human meal. According to the Census statistics from 2009 and 2010, United States is amongst the leading meat producing as well as meat consuming countries in the world, especially in beef and chicken.1 On the contrary, there is no census on human meat because no one consumes it. Yet, human meat and horsemeat are the same because it is meat from a body that has the capability of suffering as Singer proposed.
“Certainly animals do not have the same abilities as humans. They can’t talk, write books, or drive cars, but neither can some humans. Do we say that humans who lack these abilities have no value and no rights? Certainly not…” (Animal Liberation 31)
In his Meditations, Rene Descartes argues that animals are purely physical entities, having no mental or spiritual substance. Thus, Descartes concludes, animals can’t reason, think, feel pain or suffer. Animals, are mere machines with no consciousness. Use the Internet to explore the issue of animal rights. Investigate the legacy left by Rene Descartes concerning the moral status of animals.
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
A. A. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
I think the claim that animals have no rights because they are not moral agents is untrue. I think this is untrue because human concepts cannot be applied nor expected from non-human species.
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.
It is the notion of our time that non-human animals exist for the advancement of the human species. In whatever field -- cookery, fashion, blood-sports -- it is held that we can only be concerned with animals as far as human interests exist. There may be some sympathy for those animals, as to limit practices which cause excruciating suffering, but those may only be limited if they are brought to public light, and if legislators receive enough pressure from the public to change.
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.
Cavalieri , Paola. The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.