Animal Rights Argumentative Analysis

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

Leavers and takers do what is suggested by their name, leave things the way they are, and only take a limited amount of things from the Earth. Takers, on the other hand, take from the earth without ever replacing what they have taken (41). Leavers are characterized by their preservation of the earth, and how they do not kill or take excessive amounts of things from the earth, like takers do (42). Leavers were the first civilizations on the earth, the hunter-gatherers, and first farmers. The leavers are thought of by the Takers as “living in the past, those who don’t realize that their chapter of history is over” (42). Takers are those that take from the earth with no reserves, takers even take from the leavers. Takers are characterized by their ruthless taking of all the resources available to them, Ishmael illustrates this by telling the narrator that takers believe they are entitled to everything in

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”.

He says, “The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us—to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this view of animals—as our resources—the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable.”( Regan, Tom. Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1986/87. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1987. 179-189. Print.) Regan is a strong believer in giving animals the rights that they deserve. He tries to show the contradictory side to the bible. He asks in rhetoric, “Why worry about their loneliness, their pain, their death? Since animals only exist for us, to benefit us in one way or another, what harms them really doesn’t matter.” He tries to state that those who believe such things are inhumane. His tactics raise questions in the readers mind to make the reader think for himself, and have empathy towards

The first point of utilitarianism is important for readers to understand because upon completion of reading this work, or any work related to animals deserving equal considerations in terms of suffering, comes a question of ethics and a decision. Singer expresses the similarities between how humans treated one another and their progressions over time throughout Animal Liberation with good reasons. The

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

As a college student, I have seen things over the years that has concerned me on the world's approach to animal rights. Animals are still not treated fairly as humans are. In Vicki Hearn’s article, “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights”, she did not provide the audience with strong examples of ethos and logos but provided her audience with a numerous amount of pathos. People who own, work or care about animals and their opportunity to live as equal as humans do.

The controversial issue of animal testing isn’t a top priority for most Americans, but it is for the animal rights activist that have established brand boycotts and loyalty. Animal testing has been around for decades; however, most Americans do not know if their household cleans or beauty products are tested on animals. Companies like Fabreze, Lysol, and even Comet are still tested on animals as of 2017 but have a standing consumer boycott by animal rights activist. “A study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics (February 2015) found that from 1997 to 2012, the total number of laboratory animals increased by 73%, but due to inadequacies in recordkeeping on the use of animals in experimentation, the number may be even higher (“Animals,”

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.

Regarding the implementation of humane-hunting methods for fish and sharks, equal to those of land mammals, the side in support argues to consider moral values as fish face the hunting process. In contrast, the opposition argues harming fish through the hunting process is simply unavoidable and fish are oblivious to any harm (Metcalfe 2009).

Products tested on animals or other biomedical research that resulted from animal studies could save many human lives. It is difficult to justify scientific testing on animals because there is an innate bias towards humans since I am a human and I care deeply about other humans and this testing directly benefits humans. Animal studies are essential in ensuring biomedical implants, devices, and pharmaceuticals are safe for human use and in making advancements in understanding if materials and substances are effective in vivo. Since, humans have more cognitive capabilities and full autonomy that allows us to make decisions for ourselves and set goals, humans can voice their opinion on whether to participate in a research study or not, can advocate

One of the most touchy aspects of our relationship with animals is the use of animals in laboratory sciences. Some manufactures of cosmetics and household products still conduct painful and useless tests on live animals, even though no law requires them to do so. Some people, called anti-vivisectionists, are at one extreme in their concern. They want an abolition of all experiments on live animals. At the other extreme there are those who say that it is quite all right for us to do whatever we like to animals. They say that God gave us such a right, since it is written in the bible (Genesis 1:26) that man has dominion over all creatures. If what is done to the animal may produce something of educational value, adds to scientific

Argument for Animal Rights The argument for animal rights assumes that animals posses their own lives and deserve to be assigned rights in order to protect their wellbeing. This view insists that animals are not merely goods utilised only to benefit mankind and they should be allowed to choose how they want to live their lives, free from the constraints of man. But if animals are given absolute rights, then surely they shouldn’t be allowed to kill each other, as this would be a violation of these rights.

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.