Essay on ANIMAL RIGHTS

The argument for animal rights is an ever growing debate in modern society, with increasing amounts of people taking measures to protect the rights of all animals. This push for animal rights is a relatively new development, with Peter Singer acting as one of the lead advocates for this movement. Singer was one of the first philosophers to argue strongly for the equality amongst all creatures. His highly important article, “All Animals are Equal,” was published in 1974 sparking conversation over this issue. Singer is a believer in Utilitarianism, a moral code which was greatly influenced by the nineteenth century philosopher, John Stuart Mill. While Singer’s viewpoint follows much of Mill’s brand of utilitarianism, I will identify an important difference in each philosopher’s beliefs regarding “happiness” and how this leads to different application of the Greatest Happiness Principle.

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”.

In Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

Doesn’t it kill you to see a movie and see an animal get killed or just hurt in it? Good thing that’s all special effects. Back in the day, around 1966, movies didn’t always use special effects. Khartoum, a movie based on a holy war in the Sudan desert, directed by Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, used horses a great deal, but did not use the special effects in order to not hurt the animals. Many horses died in the making of this movie, as well as others, even including a major hit, Ben-Hur. Today, there are many activist groups that fight for and about the unfair treatment and protection for animals in everyday life. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of these groups. PETA was founded in

According to Gallup.com a third of Americans want animals to have the same rights as people. The Animal Bill of Right implies that animals have the right to be free from exploitation and cruelty, It also prohibits laboratory animals to be used for research. Animals will also have healthy diets and medical care. It will also provide them with an environment that satisfies their needs. I do not believe we need a Bill of Rights for animals. This would not only be extreme but it will affect human culture, medical research, and cost of food

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

Animal testing has been one of the issues that people are fighting overtime because of its moral. Even though some results of tests are successful on people, many people are still fighting for the animal’s rights. They believe that animals should have their own rights to live a free life where they belong, just like their species. In scientists point of view, animals have been one of the main subjects to test on, but a lot of them are currently looking forward to use and develop alternatives for the cruel act of animal testing.

Today, the discussions about the protection of the animal’s rights have received the attention of many people, many countries in the world. A lot of actions have been made by animal right activists to influence the world. Alex Epstein and Yaron Book, both authors of the “The Evil of Animal ‘Right’,” argue animal right activists use too much violence on their action, which is considered going against the law. Then, the authors give a lot of evidence to prove testing animals are extinct, but using animals for testing gives us new vaccines which make our lives better. Without animals for testing, how can scientists find out the vaccine for diseases? Animal right groups are making many effects to Huntingdon Life Sciences.

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.

He adds that an object that cannot suffer or have any feeling whatsoever, is not included. This may mean that an object that is not living cannot be compared to an animal. In addition, Singer recognizes that it is better for scientists to experiment on animals than on humans. He says, “Normal adult human beings have mental capacities that will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances” (Singer, 59). This is because humans get a dreading feeling because they know what is going to happen to them. Animals do not feel the anticipation, because they do not have the same mental capacity that an adult human has. Basically, he is saying that humans suffer more because we have a better memory which causes us to remember things we have heard of or experienced, and because we have better knowledge of what will happen. However, he insists that this does not make the killing of an animal right (Singer, 59).

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

backs and they were dragging their hind legs (Reed 38). While in the lab, the

However, Peter Carruthers extends this theory so that it defends the rights of animals. He suggests that a rational agent could enter into a contract for an animal, representing their interests in ‘the formulation of the basic contract’. There are also some human beings who cannot speak for themselves or question their actions, for example, fetuses, infants, the comatose, the senile and the severely retarded. These people are still assigned rights despite the fact that they are not moral agents. They may make the same simple instinctive decisions as animals, yet are given rights based upon their species.

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.

In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.