Animals may not have human rights but they certainly have basic moral rights. But, when we look at all these testing labs these animals are no longer living a peaceful and free life. They have no choice but to be exploited. Unlike animals we can stand up for ourselves when we feel endangered or put in a situation that makes us uncomfortable. On the contrary, animals are helpless; they have no ability to be understood.
There is no excuse to perpetuate the cruelty we submit our animal subjects to. Continuing such experimentation has no point and is completely unnecessary. Unfortunately, many institutions which commit violations of animal rights appear to have no conscience or concern for their wrongdoings. It seems that the only option is to force them to stop their cruelty.
Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Therefore, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of products. First, animals' rights are violated when they are used in research. Tom Regan, a philosophy professor at North Carolina State University, states: "Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. .
There is no justification for cruelly treating animals. As a result, there should be laws that are just as cruel in place to deter such a thing as cruelty to animals from happening. If there was no laws wouldn’t we be no better than the animals that are deemed dangerous? Works Cited Marquette Law Review. Spring2010, Vol.
I believe that a certain amount of respect should be given to animals and should be cultivated at a young age. However, I do believe that animals should not be granted with the same rights that we are. Nevertheless, that does not give us the right to commit wrong acts to the animals. Every day in the United States animals are beaten, neglected, or forced to struggle for survival. It's not only up to the legal system to ensure that people are aware and educated about animal cruelty.
With and explanation of animals, people believe it is acceptable for several reasons. Most people put themselves first and don’t care about the importance of the beings on the earth, and everything must be done to accomplish human survival. If animals testing on animals are right than killing human is best t too. Is the same legal system right? Should people fight for it because animal is suffering a lot?
Thus, humans beings have every right to be treated with respect. Regan explains that this is problematic, because children are not necessarily capable of the same level of thinking as adults, meaning that the view mentioned above cannot be applied. Inspite of this, children do have every right to have protection, simply because they have parents or guardians that take on this so called "contract". Regan argues that if this is the case with children, then why cannot animals also have a contract?, as they do not also have the same level of thinking as an average adult. Nonetheles... ... middle of paper ... ...f you are unlikely to treat a human being in a disrespectful and hurtful way, then why would you do the same to another breathing being, regardless of the type species it is.
We as human beings fight for our own rights, but Regan states himself that animals lack many abilities that humans possess, such as speaking. If an animal can’t talk, then we humans make animals rights based on our instinct of what we think they deserve. This is why I feel that all animals deserve respect and not rights. When I think about my rights, the only right I really know about is speaking my mind. I feel that in this generation, one doesn’t care about their right unless they are in danger of losing them.
Equality has been long discussed and it has been an issue not only between species but also within the human race. Although the situation has change within humans, for animals is a whole different story. Animals are treated in several cruel ways ranging from abandoned pets to farming and testing on them. In this essay I intend to argue that Singer’s statement that the principle of equal consideration does not require equal treatment while demanding moral equality between us and the animals still incites equal treatment to achieve moral equality. Even though this equal treatment only takes place when like relevant interest are considered, the fact that it takes place at all signifies that animals are worth for them selves to some degree.
“Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer, displays an opposing central argument, which a... ... middle of paper ... ...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. My views closely relate to those of what Cohen says because we have no right to intervene with the animal world or project our view of morality onto them, especially when it leads to a discrimination of rights. However this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protect animals or care for them.