Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Do animals deserve rights
should animals be given the same rights as human
positives and negatives of reinforcement
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Do animals deserve rights
This question we must ask ourselves is, do non-human animals matter? We also ask ourselves what defines a person? To answer this questions, non-human animals do matter. We constantly argue whether or not an animal deserves rights. According to our class definition, a right is a moral or legal entitlement that have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Usually, if an animal is not deemed intelligent or has a conscious, they should not have rights. A right is a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Although many people believe non-human animals should have rights, is it our duty to improve the welfare of non-human animals. Defined by the class, a duty is a responsibility to do or not to do …show more content…
In the reading "Minds of their own", I found it surprising that accepted that animals are like robots. In modern day society, many believe that some animals have an awareness of the self which seems to be common sense. Unlike robots, non human animals are more likely to have mental and intellectual capabilities. The acknowledgement of mental and intellectual skills of a non human animal would raise questions regarding animal rights. For example, the current debate regarding Sea World and its aquatic animals. They are debating about the issues and concerns about holding aquatic animals’ captivity. Non human animals have minds as well and should be allowed to use them. Non human animals have the ability to think on their own just as humans, unlike robots. Animals have emotions just like humans and they should be treated with the same respect as humans. Also, if you take the time to really think about it, animals do not live forever, they eventually die. However, if a robot dies, you can fix it and it will work again. Robots also cannot think for themselves, they are manmade. Unlike animals, they are capable to think for …show more content…
The way animals are treated in zoos, laboratories, and farms has become a concern to many people. ‘Suffering’ covers a wide range of different emotional states such as fear, boredom, exhaustion, pain grief, thirst, and hunger. Suffering is also defined as the bearing or undergoing of pain, distress or injury. Laws, guidelines, regulations, and codes have been put in place to inform people of how animals should be treated. All the animals are not humans, they feel pain as well, and they should not have to suffer because of our selfish wants and needs. Humans response towards negative and positive reinforcers are similar to the way non-human animals react. All though we may be genetically and physically different, we are still pretty similar. Therefore, we should treat animals the way we want to be treated. (Dawkins) Some animals can show us their emotions from positive and negative reinforcements by their behavior. Some animals show their emotions by pushing doors or pecking keys. Other animals have autonomic responses, for example, increase in heart rate associated with emotional situations such as aggression. Other animals have specific behaviors such as vocalizations associated with their emotional state. Animal suffering causes us to question the things we do. For example, we shouldn’t kill animals or inflict pain on
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
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.
Expanding this thought process, the moral thinking that animal suffering should be included in rational decision making, past the realm of simply whether or not eating animals is ethically wrong leads us to other places where animal suffering may prove helpful to human life. This such place being examined is the medical experimentation field. Animals are being bred and created just to usually live short, painful lives. The animals are treated with varying degrees of concern for their well being. The mass suffering of the animals, not just for a short time remember usually the suffering lasts for years, in some eyes are seen is seen as a necessary evil on the road to medical and scientific development. This thought process falling from the hierarchy of species that has ingrained itself in human minds, the idea that humans are the most important and worthy, and thus any suffering of “inferior creatures” should not be considered when there is the possibility for advancement. This idea however is a flaw in moral
What do we, as humans have to do in order to give nonhuman animals the proper treatment and equal moral consideration as we owe for other humans? Some, such as Jeremy Bentham would address that, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (99). Other moral philosophers, like Henry Sidgwick, however reject the theory of utilitarianism thinking that is pleasure all that really matters and are consequences all that matters (111-112)? Humans use nonhuman animals for one purpose; pleasure from using their skins for luxury goods. In this paper, I will explain and examine what Jeremy Bentham is trying explain in his argument, and will attempt to show that his argument is a plausible one, by replying an objection against his utilitarian view.
Throughout history, societies have been faced with many social issues affecting their citizens. Martin Luther King Jr, a civil rights leader for African Americans, was an advocate for the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that fought to undo the injustices African Americans endure by American society in the 1960s. Martin expressed his disgust with the social inequality among citizens when saying “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (PETA). Taking the prominent leader’s words into consideration, we should progress as a society by participating in the animal rights movement that strives to extend the same compassion, felt by Martin Luther King Jr, to all living things (PETA). Popular criticisms report that animals are inferior to humans because they are a source of food, but I will argue that they are victims of social injustice. Validity for my animal rights argument will come from individual and organizational expert accounts and by Bioethicist Peter Singer, Author Francis Fukuyama, New York Time’s Mark Bittman and also Animal Rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Animal Equality, to help prove my argument. Animals are silent victims who are loudly crying out for someone to stand up for their rights; rights that can no longer be disregarded by being overlooked. It is my belief that animals should be respected, and afforded ethical and human treatment by society instead of being looked at as a source of food. In a society where animals have no voice, it is everyone’s civic duty to participate in the animal rights movement and acknowledge animals as living beings, which...
Mulkeen, Declan and Carter, Simon. “When Should Animals Suffer?” Times Higher Education Supplement 1437 (5/26/2000): p34
Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia. Charlton is also a law professor at Rutgers University and she is the co-founder of the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic. In this article Francione and Charlton mainly focus on persuading people to believe in animal rights but only focus on one right, the right of animals not to be property. The article is written in a well-supported manner with a lot of details and examples backing it up, but a few counter-arguments can be made against some of their arguments.
For instance many other scientists believe animals are incapable of any thoughts or feelings. They think animals are like robots and are lacking emotions. While this may seem reasonable it’s not. Animals do have feelings and are intelligent just in different ways that we were taught. This doesn’t mean animals are a completely different creature it means, we may not be the same but we do have many similarities. We both have some of the same challenges we face in our life span such as finding a mate, food, and shelter.
The animal rights movement is trying to get people to see exactly how animals have been treated. Most people see animal cruelty as “…unspeakable acts perpetrated by warped individuals mostly against dogs, cats, birds, and sometimes horses” (Munro, 512). Once seeing how countless animals have been treated, numerous people across the world are joining the cause to help these poor “nonhuman animals”. One reason that supports that animals deserve rights is that “non-human mammals over a year of age have mental capacities for memory, a sense of future, emotion, and self-awareness to a certain extent” (Dog˘an, 474). With this reasoning, animals have enough mental capacity to be considered subjects of life, and therefore deserve rights to support this thesis. Another reason states that “rights are defined in terms of capability of having interests” (Dog˘an, 481). Animals show an interest in living. As stated, “[a]nimals have a natural motive to live…[e]very day, they practice caution and care necessary to protect themselves. Their bodies are likewise structured for survival” (Dog˘an,
... animal rights view, the animals, like humans have rights in the “utility- trumping sense”. The utility-trumping sense have vital interest that we must not override, even in an effort to maximize the utility for society. (Animal Rights, 20)
... 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.
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).
Animals deserve fair and ethical treatment, however not necessarily equally. Non-human animals and humans are not one in the same, there is no way we will ever be defined and put in the same category. Humans have reference levels, the ability to reason and think logically. We have evolved to the point where we can study, contain, and determine the outcome of basically any animal on Earth, now it’s up to us to ensure they are treated fairly.
The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: should non-human animals have rights? I firmly believe that non-human animals should be given rights, rights such as the right to freedom, the right to be treated with respect and care, and the right to not be exploited. Non-human animals are similar to humans in many ways and they should not be subjected to the unsanitary and crowded living conditions that factory farms and other forms of non-human animal mass production factories force them into.. They have families that they care for females bear their children just as humans do. Many human beings take think they have an inferior position over non-human animals and inflict extreme suffering upon them. I believe non-human animals should be given rights.
One of the greatest arguments against non human animals having rights is that they cannot speak for themselves, they cannot think and they are less human and so they can be created as such. There are flaws on this argument. Humans have an obligation to the society in a certain manor and this determines how they behave. From a young age, people are taught how to behave and act in a certain way and animal neglect and cruelty goes against the basic principles we are taught as children. Secondly, In addition, opponents argue that rights only belong to moral agents and that animals like moral urgency. This is absurd because some animals for example primates actually think very well and this should not be used against animals being given rights. Animals may not be having self awareness and are not able to communicate well but at least they inherently have rights just because they do exist as living things and they are able to feel pain and other emotions. Their ability to suffer and feel pain gives them a right not to be subj...