Animal Rights At Factory Farms

I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.

Factory Farming is an increasing industry in the United States. These large farms, which evidently appear to be more like slaughterhouses than the typical farms a person can imagine are located throughout the United States. These factory farms contain animals ranging from chickens, sheep, goats, cows, turkeys, and pigs, they also contain dairy products. The conditions for the animals and the employees of these factory farms are inhumane and vile. Life behind the walls of the factory farm is both unsanitary for the animals and the employees. Employees are forced to endure long hours and poor treatment. Animals in these conditions withstand living in cages and are forced to live in uninhabitable ways.

On the topic of animal rights, Vicki Hearne and Peter Singer represent opposite ends of a belief spectrum. Singer describes, in numerous articles, that he believes animal rights should focus on if the animal is suffering, and the best option to prevent it is to limit interaction between animals and humans. Specifically, in “Speciesism and Moral Status” Singer compares the intelligence and ability of non-human animals to those with severe cognitive disabilities to establish an outrageous solution to animal belittlement. He uses logos (the appeal to reason) and ethos (the appeal to ethics), to question the current rights in place to appeal to other scholars. Nevertheless, his approach can cause an emotional disconnect to the readers; this apparent in contrast to Hearne’s pathos (the

Michael Pollan argues the traditional approaches to animal rights and welfare, as well as the environment that the animals live in, are unacceptable. He addresses the issues and gives his own feedback and opinions about the topic and what he thinks the overall outcome should be. A large portion of the article is spent with ideas running through Pollan's mind and he is trying to gather enough information to realize if the process is correct or not. First, Pollan explains what's wrong with industrial farming. Pollan states that beef cattle are used to standing ankle deep in their own waste, as well as eating corn which they can't digest. Chickens get their beaks snipped off and are placed in cages that are entirely too small. Pigs are taken away from their

Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation brings forth topics of animal cruelty and equality. Singer argues that humans have a natural tendency towards speciesism; speciesism “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s species against those of members of other species” (Singer, 6). Speciesism is used by Singer to determine a catalyst for the never-ending cycle that is animal cruelty and abuse on a broader stage. Singer essentially argues that just like racism where one has prejudice or an attitude of bias in favor of one’s race as opposed to others and sexism where sexes replace races, species replaces sexes and races. Equality in Singer’s perspective is that every individual should have the opportunity of equal

Animal rights are practically non-existent in many different ways today. Factory farming is probably the worst thing they can do to the poor helpless animals. Factory farming effects chickens, cows, pigs, and many other animals that are used for food, milk and eggs. One of the biggest organizations against factory farming is called Compassion Over Killing (COK). They go to great lengths to protest and inform people about animal cruelty.

As we develop and create new technologies to help aid us in the bright new ambitious world we have set fourth today, we often come across problems. These problems will naturally occur one after the other because of the result that we make progress to fast. One of these popular issues that we have in our society is the constant debate over animal rights. In order for us to create ground breaking science and medicine we must believe it is acceptable to experiment and potentially harm animals as long as they advance the quality of human life. Ignoring animal rights can create better advancements in medicine, and variations of food. However, we can’t ignore the constant slaughter of animals which are not humane for no reason, this is something

In his essay, Singer brings up key ideas that give insight to the readers as to why they should follow utilitarianism and vegetarianism. He argues that pain and pleasure are the basis of all moral values and because animals experience pain and pleasure, this makes them morally significant as well. Singer also states that utilitarianism gives good reasons to avoid certain kinds of sourcing meats. Therefore, factory farming should be avoided and that free-range organic methods of raising animals should be used instead because it is morally neutral or good. As well, even if livestock is raised in humane ways, it is morally wrong to kill and eat the animal because it will feel pain. Singer also notes that many things must be taken into account: the potential loss of happiness of vegetarians, the loss of livelihood of producers of factory-farmed products, environmental consequences, global and individual health concerns as

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 fact that like humans, animals feel pain should be enough to consider animals’ interests and we should have responsibilities towards them. These responsibilities, however, should be limited to animal welfare. Animals cannot be given human rights because they do not posses the same traits human beings do, and conversely, human beings do not have the abilities or traits that animals have. If we follow Singer’s position and extend this non-speciesist principle of equality to animals, then huge aspects of our traditional ways of life would be dramatically changed, just as moving toward less racist and sexist social structures bring about radical

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

A common, but very accurate, phrase in the english language is, “Don’t shoot the messenger,” and that is exactly what politicians in Iowa are doing. These politicians, “bowed to corporate pressure,” (Carlson) when they passed the AgGag bill. This law prohibited consumers from knowing what exactly is going on inside the factory farms from which they receive their meat and dairy products from. Investigative journalist and animal rights activates are now restricted from going undercover and taking entry level jobs at factory farms trying to expose the animal cruelty and health hazards that take place in these factory farms.

The rights of U.S. citizen and the Animals on Animal Farm are fairly the same but different. U.S. citizens have a choice in who runs there county, while the animal farm rely's on someone to step up and take the lead such as Snowball and Napoleon. Normally animals in the U.S. don't talk or rebel against humans. But humans are considered an enemies in the Animal farm because they don't get treated right by there owner Mr. Jones.

Peter Singer addresses the ordeal of animal rights better than I have ever seen anyone address it. His analysis laid out in A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation is remarkably stated. He pushes the viewer to see animals as equals to us.

Peter Singer’s argues that we should take a utilitarian viewpoint on how people should treat animals. He sees that animals can, in some cases, be smarter than humans and should therefore have some rights in how the animals should be treated. His argument holds this general viewpoint, “..we [should] extend to other species the basic