A Philosophical View Of Animal Rights

For many years there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not animals should be given rights, even there own bill of rights. Some who are against the animal bill of rights argue that testing products on animals is important to the safety of humans. Others who want the new bill of rights claim that animals have feelings and that science is treating them inhumanely. Animal activists also add that animals are intelligent beings and are aware of how they are treated. Based on science proving animal activists correct on many of their points, this calls for a new bill of rights, in the United States, especially written for the protection and care of wild and domestic animals.

The starting point of this essay is to establish and lay out an animal rights claim. The point here is not to solely list which specific rights animals have, as that goes beyond the scope of this essay, but to discuss why animals do in fact have a claim to rights, and what this means for humans. The need to understand the intrinsic, or inherent value of animals allows us to see the base from which their claim to rights is derived. Inherent value refers to the idea that animals are valuable in themselves, not in what they provide us. Tom Regan, an animal ethicist, sets out the moral grounding from which we can

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

As human, we are unarguably the prevailing species on earth. We can treat animals in ways we chose for the sake of science; but the question still becomes, it is morally or ethically right to cause an animal suffering for our benefit? At which stage do we justify our use of animals for experiments?

Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS

The statement by Paul McCartney rings true, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian.” Animal rights is a concept which people hardly ever consider in a serious light. Being born as a human being, having a superior mental capacity and sense of times makes people think that they can rule this world and use other living beings as they see fit. This mentality leads to people say things like “animals are born to eaten” or how Aristotle claimed “all of the nature exist specifically for the sake of men” and “that animal are merely instruments for humankind.” (Pg. 495). This way of thinking often leads to overconsumption of animals, cruelty to animals and loss of species.

A quick comparison to Vicki Hearne’s “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights?” to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status”, might indicate Hearne’s argument is stronger due to her strategic and effective use of emotional appeals (i.e. pathos). These appeals allow Hearne to connect quickly and easily with her audience. Hearne is also quite clever in terms of stressing her occupation as an animal trainer. However, after a swift comparison of the two articles, it is evident that Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status” offers readers a stronger and more valid argument. Both Singer and Hearne are arguing their position on animal rights and the extent of human involvement. Since Hearne’s article is primarily based on her attempt to persuade her

Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13-26). Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm

The idea of animal rights has been around for centuries. Even decades ago, people were taking action for the welfare of animals. Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger share this idea all the way back in 1994 when they said that there is evidence that scientist are concerned with animal welfare by acknowledge that they use the guidelines in place to protect animals during research, in order to have their work published (Bekoff 219). Guidelines are the basis for the moral and ethical treatment of animals. Each person may have his or her own standard, but having a standard among the entire population ensures the welfare of the animals. Unfortunately, these standards are not at a level to where the animals are being protected. Many animals in captivity are treated in ways that would shock the average person. Orcas for example, are starved until they do the desired task (Cowperthwaite). This form of operant condition can lead to success, but often leads to resentment and hostility towards the trainers.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs. We need to acknowledge a problem. After identifying the issue, we must recognize that there is a need for change in society. In addition, he also reiterates the importance of the populace changing the way they view animals. The way society views animals will create a snowball effect that will influence politicians to also believe in animal rights.

Animals are designed to provide good to humans, and the ecosystem which resembles as a disposal service. In return for the goods and the services, animals receive the confinement, toxins, death, which is where the economy breaks down (Stibbe 67). The animal liberation movement, in contrast with wildlife conservation, focuses specifically on the animals who suffer most at the hands of humans. The ones whose relationships with humans consist of little more than abuse and exploitation. It was a discourse to promote a change in human/animal relationships, yet this discourse has its limits, Tester (199I: 196) sums up one limit to the animal liberation movement “ The animals are nothing more than objects to which something is done (Stibbe 76).” Animal agency is a contentious philosophical issue. There are theorists who are important to attribute agency to animals at all, who fear it as an anthropomorphic and therefore does not respect the different nature of animals. The discourse of animal rights is common with the animal liberation, but calls for legal rights to be created as a certain species of animals. Animals are considered to be species, resources, subspecies,

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

The study of good and bad, right and wrong, moral principles or value held by a person or society, promoting human welfare, maximizing freedom minimizing pain and suffering is called ethics. The discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings and also the value and moral status of the environment and its non-human contents is called environmental ethics. It considers the ethical relationship between the humans and the environment. Animal and animal rights are the highlighted topic in the environmental ethics.

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

In our world, protests occur each day on the issues of animal cruelty and human rights, but when the issues are put together which will reign over the other? The author Peter Singer of “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research” presents his argument for determining when animal experiments are justified. The author starts his paper with a counter argument, questioning if one would be willing to let thousands of people die if those people could be saved by experimentation on a single animal. The answer is a unanimous no; in our culture we value human life over everything else. The author follows by asking the reader if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on humans who are mentally retarded or orphaned babies, if that