Animal Rights Activists: A Personal Analysis

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

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”.

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

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.

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.

Introduction, animals that are being tested safety of their products that’s been a subject of an intense debate for over 10 years. While, a lot of people that alleged animals, the remained animals are being subjugated by the research cosmetics companies all over the country/all over the world. Even though, the scientists frequently profit from animal research, I don’t think all the suffering, the pain, and the animals dying are worth just trying find out the human benefits from the products.

Is the human race ready to sacrifice lives in order to protect the welfare of animals? Is the human race ready to justify trading human lives for animal lives? Even though we should make every effort ensure that animals are not wantonly harmed in research, animals certainly do not have the same rights as humans do. Many animal rights activists condemn research on animals, citing that it is inhumane. But prohibiting research on animals would be even more inhumane. Research on animals has eradicated many diseases and saved the lives of millions, and discontinuing doing so will generate disastrous consequences. Because of extremely advantageous health advancements that have benefited, and will continue to benefit, the lives of human beings, research on animals should continue to be allowed.

“Nearly as many, 68 percent, were concerned or very concerned about the well-being of animals used in ‘sports’ or contests as well as animals in laboratories (67 percent) (Kretzer, 1).” Many people question whether an animal is capable of thought and emotions. Others feel as though animals are the equivalent of humans and should be treated as such. Since the 1800’s, animal rights has been a topic that has several different sides including two extremes. If animals can react to their environment, emote, and are aware of things done to or with them, then they should have similar rights to humans.

I remember being in 9th grade, and wanting so desperately to “fit in”. My high school goal was to be popular. Sadly, I was far from popularity. I never could comprehend why I never was popular. I seriously want it to belong to a big group of people. My high school years were very memorable, because I tried my best to find a place where I belonged. Every semester tried to transform myself, into a person I wasn’t. I became a vegetarian in the 9th grade and joined the Animals Rights Club. Unfortunately, didn’t make a single friend in that club. Apparently, only vegans and hippies were solitary welcomed into that club. I was far from a quitter. I didn’t let the animal rights club stop me from finding friends. After an entire year of going to events

Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know is a book written by Paul Waldau, president of the Religion and Animals Institute but also a former director of the Center for Animals and Public Policy. Waldau is an author with experience in studying animal law and the treatment of animals. He served as lecturer at the Harvard Law School, regarding animal law, four times between 2002-2010. His book describes the many different issues presented in animal testing and the animal rights movement and how these issues are regarded in society.

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.

Most humans tend to be in this trouble middle when it comes to their relationship with animals. They are concerned about the cruel ways animals are treated, but still contribute to it by eating animals, keeping them as pets or watching bullfights. They are aware of how unethical these actions are but continue to do it for their personal gain or enjoyment. Some also have complicated reasoning such as thinking it’s acceptable to eat certain types of animals and not others. Typically this type of reasoning varies depending on the region where one lives. For example, most people who live in the United States of America (U.S.A) think it is appalling to eat a dog while it is completely acceptable in places like China. Similarly, it is acceptable to eat beef in the U.S.A, but not in India due to their religious belief of the cow being sacred. These different cultures and religion have resulted in it being acceptable to eat certain animals in some places and unethical to do so in others. To avoid this troubled middle, all animals should be treated equally so that if it is unethical to eat one type of animal it should be unethical to eat all types of animals.

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.

Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to humans. As pointed out by Jan Narveson "morality is a sort of agreement among rational, independent, self-interested persons who have something to gain from entering into such an agreement" (192). In order to have the ability to obtain rights one must be consciously able to enter into an agreement, non-human animals are