Animal Liberation Essay

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 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

For example Michael describes “eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals, killing animals for sport: all these practices, so resolutely normal to us, will be seen as the barbarities they are, and we will come to view “speciesism” (Greenbalt,Abrahams,David, Lewalski, Lipking, Logan, and Simpson,pg. 619). Nevertheless, Michael struggles to take side of the protest of considering animals as humans, or living like so many others. He stated” There’s a schizoid quality to our relationship with animals, in which sentiment and brutality exist side by side (Greenbalt,Abrahams,David, Lewalski, Lipking, Logan, and Simpson, pg 620). Also, Singer; the publisher of Animal Liberation argued and advocated for civil, and moral rights for animals. In addition, Michael stated “Thirty-seven states have recently passed laws making some forms of animal cruelty a crime, twenty-on of them by ballot initiative (Greenbalt,Abrahams,David, Lewalski, Lipking, Logan, and Simpson,pg.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Regan states that instead of viewing animals as existing solely for human disposal, or as having value only because they retain the same feelings of pain and satisfaction humans do, we should consider animals as

Regan, Tom. "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs." Forming a Critical Perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2010. 336-40. Print.

In this case the animals he says are being treated like machines and that the pleasure we get from eating a steak does not equate to the pain the cow has to endure living in the industrial farms. He also writes about experimentation on animals and that it is like using orphaned human infants because adult apes, mice, and cats have the same awareness of what is happening to them as the infant would. This may come across as extreme to most humans but I would agree with Peter Singer, because the ape or mouse cannot give permission to be abused by our science, what would give us the right to do so. Another point that can be made about our

In Peter Singer's article all animals are equal, Peter Singer argues for the moral considerability of animals. His main argument boils down to, we ought to extend to nonhuman animals the same equality of consideration that we extend human beings. Now whether or not eating meat is morally justifiable is a good question. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally justifiable to eat meat, however with the exception of a few alternatives. The immorality of killing an animal for its flesh is morally wrong, for example most of the meat that we consume in urban modern societies is from factory farms. Factory farms employ extremely cruel farming tactics, for example putting up to six chickens in a single cage this gives them barely enough room to move or even open the wings. Chickens for example raised in factory

Peter Singer, the author of Animal Liberation, states that human-to-human equality should be extended to animals because humans and animals both possess the same perception of pain. Singer says, “Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species, especially the species most closely related to us - the species of mammals and birds” (Singer 11). Singer states his personal view on animal rights. Many people hold similar views, and these people believe that the issue of animal overpopulation should be addressed by means that most benefit animals. This type of view clashes with views that humans’ needs must come first. Even among thosewithin this group of people who prioritize animals, there are disputes about how to most ethically treat animals. Some oppose animal sterilization, while others believe it is a completely humane practice, again, therefore yielding no conclusive solution to the

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.

In recent times there have been an increase in the fancy over fur as a commodity.Fur clothing is made up of hides of an animal. Some view fur as to be a form of luxury and as a material possession that proves one to be wealthy whilst some refuse it due to moral beliefs.Controversy still however exists pertaining to the wearing of fur clothing.This is due to the cruelty towards animals in the process of attaining their fur for procession into an clothing.

them both on the same level. This theory questioned all that was believed to be

It is said that present laws have begun a revolutionary outlook on the way humans treat animals; however, it is misplaced that a revolution to conserve animals’ lives has truly done just that. In the present age group, named Generation Peter Pan, a ‘trend’ of ending the reckless ‘murdering’ of animals has been birthed to battle against cruelty- going vegan. Though it has halted the overproduction of slaughter, it has failed in truly protecting, as well as securing, the rights of animals in their life, liberty, and their pursuit of inevitable happiness. In Generation Baby Boomers, their concerns lied elsewhere, in warfare and survival, causing little to none pursual of lawful reaction to the deaths of animals.

Nearly four people were murdered every week in 2016 protecting their land and the natural world from industries like mining, logging and agribusiness. We have to think about, that our resources can run out and we will never see some animals and plants again. This does not mean the world is ending, we can still prevent nature from getting destroyed, if each and everyone of us does our one part

There may be those who oppose the rights of animals based on a sort of reasoning. They may be quick to point to plants and inquire if they deserve rights, too. However, plants are not conscious beings, and they are not capable of suffering. There can be no real sympathy with them. Another may point to how animals eat each other and ask why we should give them rights when they do not give each other rights. Of course, if animals are irrational and lack compassion, are we to be irrational and lack compassion? If another animal, even a human commits an act of rape or murder, does that justify us doing it, simply because he does it? Certainly not. Imitation is no grounds for morality. Some may claim that humans have teeth designed to consume flesh, but this proves nothing. As guns are designed to kill, but that does not justify their usage. Others may claim that god had created animals specifically for our usage. But this was the defense used by slaveowners of their slaves, and it is no less hypocritical or unjust when people today make the same claim of animals.