According To Singer's Argument For Animal Rights

INSERT HOOK The topic of animal liberation is not typically an object of discussion. Most likely because people don’t understand what animals need to be liberated from. Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher. Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” offers a fascinating view on how humans perceive themselves in comparison to animals. The article examines the tyranny of humans over animals (non-humans). Singer believes humans need to expand their moral horizons so that the mistreatment of animals is a thing of the past and is seen as intolerable. Throughout his essay he states claims supporting his thesis and elaborates on them to hopefully get his audience to see where he is coming from. INSERT BETTER THESIS?

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

Traditionally the treatment of non-human animals is considered a trivial matter because these animals lacked souls and are created to serve mankind. But the utilitarian’s took a different viewpoint in how we treat animals. Peter Singer is one of them and he guided the liberation of animals, which is akin to women liberation movement in the 18th century.

The experiment was very controversial because it was very unethical and the monkeys suffered a lot of pain, and in some cases died of overdose.

The overall idea of testing on animals should be considered to be unethical. In terms of medical research purposes, it is necessary to continue making progress in the medical field, especially in terms of infectious diseases. The main ethical concern that receives the most criticism from activists and animal welfare groups is the overall treatment of animals. As seen in the opening sequence of 28 days later, the animal activists were trying to free the monkeys that were held in medical research lab. According to Blakemore, “In fact, animal research has contributed to 70 per cent of Nobel prizes for physiology or medicine”(Blakemore, 2008). One thing that cannot be denied is the usefulness of animal testing in the medical field. The fact that is has made a substantial contribution in terms of developing medicines that can be used in current times. The medical field seems that is always expanding due to the increasing technology present in current times. However, it still appears that we are not at that particular point in time, where animal testing can be completely phases out of medicine. The main purpose of any medical researcher is to find a cure for genetic disorder or incurable diseases. We need to evaluate all options in the medical field because these could help save a lot of people’s lives. Furthermore, researchers that are dedicated to their jobs are not attempting to harm the animal in any manner. Taking that into account, the best idea would be to get their insight from animal right organizations, so they promote a certified ethical practice of animals testing. Hence, it is a good way to monitor the practices of animal testing in science testing labs. Throughout the process, the animals that get tested on should be monitored health wise and retired at the end of the session of

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

Whether animal experimentation is justified or not has been undecided for many decades. Many years back, the debate was carried out by animal rights groups which were led by the Cambridge University to get rid of its plan for a primate research in 2004. Since this debate, many supporters have become more confident in speaking out what they believe and getting their points across to people.

In Peter Singer’s article “All Animals are Equal,” Singer advocates for the basic principle of equality to be extended to animals. By the basic principle of equality, he means that all beings should receive equal consideration in relation to experiencing pain and pleasure.

On the other hand, Carl Cohen, who is a philosopher who against animal rights, concludes that if humans do not use animals to help them for living, they will suffer more. If humans want to against human’s right, they have to be ready to not consuming whether intentionally or unintentionally animals. In medical field, it will be impossible to find cures for human if the scientists do not test it to other beings, in this case, animals. According to Cohen, humans use animal for their experiment because animals are not able to have moral decisions. Also, animals are not capable of exercising or responding to moral claims, and they cannot have any rights. Whereas human, on the other hand, are capable of moral claims, and they are eligible to have

Like any controversial topic some believe the pros of animal testing outweigh the cons and vice versa. The ethical outlook dominates both of them. What this essentially means is that emotion is perhaps the fundamental influential element in whether a person deems the advantages of animal testing overshadow the troubles correlated with the experiment. “If a monkey is very sick it will lie down when people turn their backs.” (185). Therefore due to the experimentation, “the sick monkey was holding its knees and there were star like speckles on its eyelids when Hensley turned her back the monkey laid down in its cage.” (185). These monkeys would not show in front of the scientists that they were suffering, instead they did it quietly and in secret.

Why harm the life of a monkey to possibly save people from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's? The experiments are not aloud to be taken place. As much as people and animals are alike, it isn't acceptable to harm a fetus monkey that hasn't lived a life yet. People that develop Alzheimer's and Parkinson's are usually around 70 years old and humans around that age that have such a disease end up not living much longer. Animals have lives too that shouldn't be jeopardized for a human disease. It's hard because animals obviously can't talk but could you imagine doing experiments on humans? Taking young, harmless animals away from their families keeps them from growing. Humans are animals that share a common biology. If we put human life first,

The abuse of animals by scientists and them being held against their will is very unnecessary; therefore animals should not be used in experiments. Animal testing is cruel and inhumane and shouldn’t be used. These animals are being restrained and abused by the scientists in labs and universities across the world. Ending animal experimentations is something that should be done because it is not needed and it is cruelty to

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.

A question we are asked at least once in our lives is, “Are the rights reserved for humans and the rights reserved for animals equal in the amount of importance or value?” Peter Singer, a utilitarian, and Tom Regan, a deontologist both believe in animal rights. However, they don’t agree on every single aspect regarding the rights for animals. Singer believes humans and animals both have rights, but they don’t have the equal capacity to feel pleasure or pain. On the other hand, Regan’s views differ. He thinks that the rights for humans and animals are of equal value. I agree with them both. Animals should have rights and be treated with respect, but when it comes to saving my sister or my dog, I’d save my sister.

On the other hand, I believe Carl Cohen has better arguments for animal research use. He agrees that animals are aware of feeling pain, and suffering, but he disagrees that although animals are sharing these traits with humans does not mean that they are morally equal to humans. Cohen thinks people are mistaking animal’s rights because they are confused between rights and obligations; so they guess that due to the accountability to animals that humans have, they believe that animals do have rights. This false prediction is based on false logic. Cohen explains the differences between obligation and right, one as something we ought to do and the other as what others properly order that we do. Cohen states that the moral agents on this planet