Animal rights is the concept of giving non-human animals possessions over their own lives and granting equal consideration as those of humans. The topic of animal’s rights has been a discussion of debate for a long time. How many rights should an animal be able to have? Should it be equivalent to the rights of a human being? Many would argue that animals deserve to have rights because they have the ability to feel pain and suffering, while others may argue that animals do not deserve rights because they simply do not possess the same moral judgments as human beings. I believe that animals should have rights to a certain extent. Animals should be free from being hunted, used for entertainment purposes and tested for cosmetic products, but not …show more content…
People love to go to SeaWorld, but how often do they think about the animals? One of SeaWorld’s biggest attractions is their orcas. Orcas are large toothed whales with distinctive white and black markings and a prominent dorsal fin. They typically live in groups that hunt fishes, seals, and penguins. When orcas live in their natural habitats, their average life expectancy is 30 to 50 years but when extracted from their environments and placed in SeaWorld, their average death age is 13 years. Their life expectancy is cut more than half of what it should be. Being held captive in a tank prevents them from swimming freely. In Peter Singer’s article on Speciesism, he argues that we should extend the same consideration of equality to non-human animals like we do with human beings. Singer’s stance is that the membership of species is pivotal to moral status and that all human life is of equal value. He states that speciesism is closely intertwined with racism and sexism and without speciesism, inequality cannot follow. He utilizes example of dogs to demonstrate that equality does not require equal rights. Speciesism is the idea that human superiority leads to the mistreatment of non-human animals. Dogs do not understand the means of voting, does not mean that they do not deserve equal consideration. Dogs have the ability to understand human spoken language. Singer compares the cognitive abilities between animals and humans. A person with cognitive disabilities can have an IQ range below 25 and is unable to perform basic tasks such as speech, useful work, etc. while a nonhuman animal, like the gorilla, has an IQ range above 25 and can follow simple directions without requiring a lot of supervision. Seeing that animals can have a higher IQ range than “mentally retarded” humans, does not mean that a
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).
Species egalitarianism is an easily outmoded form of communicating treatment of species because of all the questions and speculation it ultimately raises. The equivocation of animals is absurd. We can’t compare them because of all their fundamental differences, and to do so is insulting to all species that fall below the parameters we instill. Ultimately, there is no possible situation in which species egalitarianism is correct.
Speciesism, as defined by Peter Singer, “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 6). The rationale for the preferential treatment encapsulated in this definition is simply the fact that those receiving the preferred treatment belong to the same species, and not on the basis of any grounds of higher intelligence or other attributes.
It is apparent that there are many philosophers that stand on both sides of the argument. One side is clearly expressing that while there may be some overlap between the human species and nonhuman species, we are not equal because of the concept of rationality, for example. However, I see Singer’s arguments as much stronger than the other philosophers. He draws on many solid points backed up by concrete evidence that is easily understandable on many points, pulling from different experiences and true events. I defend Singer’s view that nonhuman animals are equal to human beings because he points cannot be discounted, but more heavily supported the more he digs into them.
Singer’s argument in favor of the claim that speciesism is false can be formulated as follows. Singer comments that a requirement for equality is to have interests. In order to have interests, the being must be able to suffer. Animals are capable of suffering, therefore they have interests. Since animals have interests, they meet the requirement for equality. Humans base their criteria for equality on being actual human beings. Singer proposes that to just be a human is not the requirement of being equal because humans are different in moral codes, shapes, sizes, intellectual abilities and genetic make-up. Since humans are different from one another, in his view, then it cannot be a plausible reason to treat all humans equally because they belong to the same species. However, all
“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)
Animal rights can defined as the idea that some, or all non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Animal rights can help protect the animals who experience research and testing that could be fatal towards them. The idea of animal rights protects too the use of dogs for fighting and baiting. Finally, animal rights affects the farms across america, limiting what animals can be slaughtered. The bottom line is, there is too much being done to these animals that most do not know about.
believe that animals do not have the same rights as humans because they are not
...nger states “Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests”. Singer argues that, as there is no justification for unequal treatment of human beings based on capacity, it is also unjustifiable to treat human and non-human animals differently based on their capacities.
In the article “No, animals don’t have rights” (2014), the author argues that the movement for animals rights is reducing humans to animals, or upgrading animals to humans. However, this is not entirely true, humans are also animals, but with a higher degree of intelligence. In the article “Yes, animals have feelings” (2014), has shown that most scientists agree that vertebrates animals are, to different degrees, sentient. Humans can’t understand what they feel exactly, but we can notice their change in behavior and emotion. Animals are responsive and expressive, they have their intentions and preferences. Opponents believe that animals don 't have rights or that even if they do, those rights should count for less than human desires; others believe giving animals rights would demean humanity and animal rights must be rejected; also, that human welfare is more important than animal welfare, interests of animals should be overruled when necessary. A research by the Clever Dog Lab at the University of Vienna, shows that dogs, just like humans, glance at the left side of the human face first, this is where the bilateral brains exhibit more emotion. Therefore, dogs rapidly read mood and intentions. A research led by Giorgio Vallortigara of the University of Trento, found that dogs were relaxed when they watched videos of dogs wagging their tails mainly to the
"In "All Animals Are Equal," Singer argues for the equality of all animals, on the basis of an argument by analogy with various civil rights movements, on the part of human beings. How does this argument go exactly, and what is Singer's precise conclusion? Is his argument successful? Why or why not? If you think it is successful, raise a residual potentially damaging objection, and respond on Singer's behalf (i.e., as a proponent of the position). And if not, how far does the argument go and/or how might it be improved? What has Singer taught us here, if anything?"
Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings.
Animals can be a man's best friend; however, they can also be ones worst enemy after passing certain boundaries. Peter Singer who wrote Animal Liberation gave valid points in my opinion because animals do have a right to live and we should give them their space. Humans take everything for granted and never seem to learn until it too late. Today slaughterhouses are abusing animals in disturbing ways which has to change. I will agree with Singers concepts on animals because they have a right to live a peaceful life like humans; they have a life ahead of them once they are born. Singer argues that animals should have their interests considered throughout their lives. Singer wants to eliminate speciesism from our thoughts which is, a human discriminatory belief that all other animals are not as good as them therefore they do not have rights and we could do what we want to them. We should not be the only types of "animals" in this earth who has a set of rights we should abide.
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
... 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.