Analysis Of Why Animals Do Not Have Rights By Cal Cohen

Non-human animals should have the same rights that humans have such as not being used as food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation.

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.

When a cause is brought up and given light, it has a way of splitting people in how they react to it. And such has been true when it comes to granting new rights, because it’s brobdingnagian in our society that is always hungry for freedoms. We are split down the middle on whether, or not to consider animals, just like us, and thus deserve the rights we hold in our society today. On the other end, are people who don’t believe such rights should be given to animals. While the pro-arguments hold value, there is much more to see on the other end. As to why animals shouldn’t have a “Bill of Rights” like we as humans do. It’s shown in various different ways, even the most popular arguments held by the opposing side. Such as cows hurting the environment, zoo’s being inhumane, and pets. There are other factors as well to take into consideration such as food, psychology medicine, and even culture.

The question asked is could a social contract theorist be an advocate for animal rights? According to the view of the social contrast theorist, the answer would be no. Their belief system is that animals have no rights because they can’t understand nor take part in a contract. Unfortunately, because they cannot comprehend a contract, they cannot uphold it, thus, they don’t have any moral rights. This also hold true for young children and the mentally challenged. Personally, most humans still hold a basic moral code and have a level of compassion in which they, on some level want to protect those that can’t speak for themselves. I understand the concept that the social contract theorist believe in and can understand and even agree with their

However, placing animals at the same level of humans is somewhat blemished. Animals do indeed have rights, although they are

Kailee Candia Do Animals Have Rights? With a rise of cruelty free products and plant based diets, we ask the questions should animals have rights? In “ The Case for Animals Rights,” by Tom Regan in which he writes on his beliefs for animal rights. According to Regan the animal rights movement is committed to,” total elimination of: use of animals in scientific experiments commercial animal agriculture, commercial & sport hunting & trapping.” Three views about our treatment of animals that Regan will rejet are, Indirect duty view, Cruelty-kindness view, and Utilitarian view (Singer).

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.

The concept of animals rights is based on the belief that nonhuman animals have similar interests and rights to those of human beings. It would be considered, not only unlawful, but inhumane to hunt, test, and use humans for medical research. However, we do exactly that to nonhuman animals in hopes of creating a better and safer life for existing humans. Do we do it because human beings, as opposed to nonhuman animals, hold a special place in nature? That human good is the only good? Or is because human individuals hold true to the “top of of food

stress affection, excitement and even love (par.2). He also says that researchers are finding out that many of these creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined (par. 2). Rifkin then talks about that new studies show that some animals do have a sense of self awareness (par.10). The article shows that animals do understand so they have self-awareness to protect themselves. Finally, Unlike all the other articles, “No Rights for Animals!”

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.

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

For many years now the world has seen controversy over the rights of animals and if they think and feel like humans do. Many people see animals as mindless creatures or as food, while others think they have emotions and can feel pain. In other countries animal protection laws are in place that are strictly enforced and seem to work well with the system. In the United States however; some of the animal rights laws are considered to be useless and under-enforced (Animal Legal & Historical Center). More people today are beginning to see that animals should have rights and should be protected by laws and regulations (Animal Legal & Historical Center). Sadly there are many people residing in the United States who don’t take animal rights or protection laws seriously. These people abuse animals in many ways, including food industries that disobey the regulations set in place for the slaughter of animals used for consumption. Luckily for the animals there are people who fight for their rights and the enforcement of laws called animal rights activists.

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.