What Should Animals Have Rights?

Animals have Rights? “Human rights” are typically depicted as a person’s undoubted eligibility to live a life fulfilled with complete comfort and utter safety. Should this same concept be applicable to the lives of animals? Author and columnist, Sam Vaknin, writers “Whether a Right or Not, Animals Should Be Treated Morally” in hopes to persuade online readers that “ ‘Animal Rights’ is a catchphrase akin to ‘human rights’” (Vaknin). Vaknin claims that “…except the right to free speech, all other rights could be applied to animals” (Vaknin). However, these concepts of ethical interaction and moral protection tend to be ignored when regarding animals. In other words, there are “a few pitfalls” when it comes to animal rights (Vaknin).. Vaknin

Having credibility, as a writer, creates validity from a reader’s perspective. Vaknin refers to the novel of a supporting author, Steven Wise, called “Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights”. Wise argues that “many animal species exhibit awareness, cognizance and communication skills typical of human toddlers and of humans with arrested development” (Vaknin). Vaknin uses this as supporting material for this argument. Then, Wise also discusses the four characterizations of the word “autonomy – a legal standard for granting ‘ personhood’ and the rights it entails” (Vaknin) Being eligible for autonomy requires the ability to have and fulfill desires, have self- consciousness and self-awareness (Vaknin). Autonomy basically delegates the idea of a person having the ability to survive independently with personal comprehension and desires. Wise claims that most animals are qualified for autonomy (Vaknin). However, Vaknin opposes this idea and says “this may be going too far” (Vaknin). Vaknin recognizes that Wise may be creating a more of a ridiculous and unnecessary approach to animal rights. Vaknin’s ability to acknowledge unconventional ideals, develops his own credibility. Vaknin also regards to the writings of well- known historical philosophers, Immanuel Kant and Nicolas Malebranche. Unlike Wise, Kant and Malebranche “rejected the idea of animal rights.

Through comparing the viewpoints of philosophers, religious perceptions and including his own knowledge and intellect, he successfully writes an un-opinionated article, concluding that animal rights are appropriate. Vaknin’s supporting evidence and sources are quite comparable to those of the “Animal Rights Debate” article by Kim Evans. Evans relies on the credibility of philosophers, social belief systems and concepts, along with her own knowledge of the issue. Evan’s utilizes philosopher, Carl Cohen, as a reliable source and includes his statement: “there is a moral difference between humans and animals that denies rights to animals and allows animals to be used by humans” (Evans). This supports the ideals of Kant and Malebranche, Vaknin’s used philosophers. Evans proposes that belief systems, such as religion, may have an impact on one’s morale when it comes to animals (Evans). Evans also refers back to the figure of Adam and claims that those who deny animal rights refer back to the fact that “God gave humans dominion over the animals” (Evans). Adam was above animals, not amongst them. A lot like the Vaknin’s reference to Malebranche’s ideal. Evans, like Vaknin, also proposes that the debate on animal rights is also all based on perspective. “People answer this