Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.
Basic rights such as free speech, privacy, fair trial, freedom of religion, the right to ones own body, and life should be present universally. But beyond these, what else is necessary? At the very least, equality for all in education, work, voting, rights, pay, and marriage. Depriving one of rights due to their race, age, socioeconomic class, sex, gender, disability, and sexual orientation is morally unethical. The Dalai Lama says it best, “Whether one is rich or poor, educated or illiterate, religious or nonbelieving, man or woman, black, white, or brown, we are all the same. Physically, emotionally, and mentally, we are all equal. We all share basic needs for food, shelter, safety and love.” It is vital for one to look beyond these differences and treat their fellow human equally. Political rights such as voluntary voting and the ability to check and balance the government are also imperative. The ability to vote voluntarily gives p...
... middle of paper ...
...ghts, preventing suffering, and looking to other successful countries. People must take care to treat animals as living creatures instead of property or their next meal. Efforts need to be made to lower animal suffering and encourage people to eat less meat. It doesn't matter if we are a human, dolphin, or dog, we are all sentient creatures with the same desire for a painless, happy life.
Works Cited
Arora, Namit. "What Do We Deserve?" Emerging: Contemporary Readings for Writers. Ed. Barclay Barrios. 2nd ed. N.p.: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2013. 86-93. Print.
Wallace, David Foster. "What Do We Deserve?" Emerging: Contemporary Readings for Writers. Ed. Barclay Barrios. 2nd ed. N.p.: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2013. 498-510. Print.
Lama, Dalai, XIV. Toward a True Kinship of Faiths: How the World's Religions Can Come Together. New York: Doubleday Religion, 2010. Print.
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).
Slaughter. Torture. Neglected. Starvation. Everyday innocent animals have to face these consequences because of us. Animals can show more love and affection to us than we humans can. Animals are not only subjects to animal testing, fur farming, breeding, factory farming, dog fighting, but also many other purposes. Animal cruelty perfectly epitomizes the fact that animals can show more compassion, respect to others. A dog, otherwise known as a “man’s best friend” always has this thing called a collar, choked on its neck. So does that mean we in return have to wear a collar too, being pulled in the direction that the dog wants to go, never having the chance to go where we want, do what we want? A young orca forcefully separated from their mother to be enslaved into performing at water parks eternally. Not only that, they are enclosed in these small cages and have to spend endless hours cramped up in that tight space. The pool they swim in is far smaller than what they can swim in if they were free, off in the wild. Is that fair to them that for our satisfaction and pleasure, these animals are deprived from their perfect live? As Christine Stevens had said, “The basis of all animal rights should be the Golden Rule: we should treat them as we would wish them to treat us, were any other species in our dominant position.”
In his article entitled “Animal Liberation,” Peter Singer suggests that while animals do not have all of the exact same rights as humans, they do have an equal right to the consideration of their interests. This idea comes from the fact that animals are capable of suffering, and therefore have sentience which then follows that they have interests. Singer states “the limit to sentience...is the only defensible boundary of concern for interests of others” (807). By this, he means that the ability to feel is the only grounds for which rights should be assigned because all species of animals, including humans, have the ability, and therefore all animals have the right to not feel suffering and to instead feel pleasure.
The coexistence of religions is not a custom of certain regions of the world, and dialogue is required by this emerging reality, which is inscribed in relations of coexistence highlighted by the need for mutual understanding, engagement, and cooperation across denominational boundaries. In his article “Thoughts on why, How, and What Buddhists Can Learn from Christian Theologians” John Makransky, an ordained Tibetan Buddhist and ...
This view is along the lines of the theory which was presented to the world by John Hick. He {Dalai Lama} understands that there are other religions out in the universe and understands that his is just one of the many that are able to be offered to people. However, beneath his receiving and acceptance, His Holiness comes off more as a religious exclusivist (SLU 659). Using John Hick’s theory of religious pluralism as a base, this paper will allow the reader to identify how the Dalai Lama is an advocate of religious diversity, but still upholds an exclusivist perspective concerning
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”(Arthur Schopenhauer)
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the moral principles and values that govern our behavior as human beings. It is important in the human experience that we are able to grasp the idea of our own ethical code in order to become the most sensible human beings. But in that process, can ethics be taught to us? Or later in a person’s life, can he or she teach ethics the way they learned it? It is a unique and challenging concept because it is difficult to attempt to answer that question objectively because everybody has his or her own sense of morality. And at the same time, another person could have a completely different set of morals. Depending on the state of the person’s life and how they have morally developed vary from one human
As a function, ethics is a philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct, and of the rules and principles it should govern. As a system, ethics are a social, religious, or civil code of behavior considered correct by a particular group, profession, or individual. As an instrument, ethics provide perspective regarding the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, or potential outcomes. Ethical decision-making can include many types, including deontological (duty), consequentialism (including utilitarianism), and virtue ethics. Additionally, subsets of relativism, objectivism, and pluralism seek to understand the impact of moral diversity on a human level. Although distinct differences separate these ethical systems, organizations
Proponents of human rights argue that the concept’s universality rests in its non-discriminatory character- human rights are meant for every human being- rich and poor, white and black, men and women, young and old, leaders and followers, elites and illiterate, etc- and are all treated equally.
I strongly believe that some acts are morally right and others morally wrong. Though in society today I find many different people with many different opinions on this some issues. The way someone was raised or the experiences they have faced could be what has molded these beliefs. The differences between right and wrong are not always the same in each person's head and this is where we face controversy. Morals differ from person to person resulting in confrontations dealing with morality issues. Such as euthanasia, human beings should not have to suffer, just as we do not allow animals to suffer. I believe Pro-Choice is morally right. Woman should be given the choice of whether or not she can terminate her pregnancy. On the flip side, I feel cheating is morally wrong, and puts people at an unfair advantage.
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.
Lama, Dalai. The world of Tibetan Buddhism: an overview of its philosophy and practice. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995. Print.
Barusch, (2011), states social justice can be defined using one of two approaches: “modern” and “postmodern”. The modern approach is indicative of those that believe justice is an objective, achievable end or goal. Utopian literature often uses this approach by featuring a just society in its writings. The postmodern approach discards the belief of an objective standard of justice, arguing that societies determine what is just.
Everyone has rights. Even animals have rights. Our textbook defines a right as “an individual’s entitlement to something”. Rights may derive from moral standards or a legal system. Three types of rights are legal rights, moral rights and human rights.
Many people don’t even think twice about what rights they have, they assume since they are a human being there are just things they are automatically entitled to. At one point in my research I came across and article that showed 30 different rights we as human should have. For example: we are all free and equal, right to life, no torture, freedom to move, right to a good life, even a free and fair world. After reading the list several times I thought to myself why are these only human rights why can’t these right be applied to animals as well. The definition of animal rights states that animals should be free from human use and exploitation. Would these be the same rights as humans? No not by any means. I think what people fail to realize is that humans are animals, we are all mammals, primates, etc. Over time though it has come to be a separate topic and anything that is not a human being and is living is referred to as an animal. One of the best examples I found of animal rights is that “the prophet taught that the animals’ rights are to be respected, to be spared from suffering and given the food it needed, to be treated well, was not negotiable.” (Waldau 2010, 3) This shows what I believe to be the best interpretation of what animal rights exactly are. I choose to explain animal welfare only because upon researching I found a lot of