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.
Animal welfare, on the other hand, permits these uses of animals as long as certain humane guidelines are enforced” (Frequently). Some people believe the concern for animals is a waste of time when there are so many humans in need. Pro activists, however, argue that humans and animals are equally important and both deserve attention. This is a problem that concerns everyone in the world. We, as humans, depend on animals for many things such as food and clothing, so where and when will this controversy end?
Finally there will be an overall increase in public morality and virtue as a result of ending cosmetic testing on animals. Happiness will be maximized for both humans and animals and humans will continue to fulfill their duty to respect the life of all beings, including animals. Society will be better off without such acts of cruelty and the lives of animals won’t be used as a means only. Allowing cosmetic testing on animals ensures the safety of products for human use, however the results are not always successful. Some also argue that animals do not share the same rights as humans do by law, therefore it is acceptable to continue testing on animals.
We are natural born leaders and therefore it is our responsibility to look out for those who look up to us. As animals have no say we have to be there voice and speak up where needed. Through this and advocating for a better tomorrow we can make a difference in animal abuse and end all harm to those innocent, to make the world a better equalized place.
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. Peter Singer addresses the ordeal of animal rights better than I have ever seen anyone address it. His analysis laid out in A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation is remarkably stated. He pushes the viewer to see animals as equals to us. But in order for him to do this he must first redefine equality.
During this essay I will be adopting and using normative ethical theories from philosophers to highlight my thesis and arguments. What is important to note is that people do treat animals however they like, just as humans treat each other just as they like, this is the result of humans having free will. What is significant is that most people choose to treat animals... ... middle of paper ... ... best how I feel we should behave to animals. He makes an important distinction between domesticated and wild animals which I have failed to do in this essay. "Towards the first (animals who depend on us), we have a duty to provide a fulfilled life, an easy death and the training required by their participation in the human world.
"A & P." Making Literature Matter: An Anthology for Readers and Writers. Eds. John Clifford and John Schilb. Boston: Bedford, 1999. 733-37.
This begins with, first and foremost, a creative new approach to teaching students to write. Works Cited Bartholomae, David, and Tony Petrosky. Ways of Reading: an Anthology for Writers. 9th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.