Animal Rights: Comparing the Views of Hasselstrom and Regan Essay

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”.

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

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.

The killing of animals has been ubiquitous almost since the creation of the world. Some animals are killed as a sacrifice to a “greater being”. Other animals are killed for food. Finally, some animals are killed for sport, that is, human leisure.

Philosopher Tom Regan also supports my argument that animals have rights similar to those of humans. Regan argues that the system as a whole needs to change in order for animals rights to be achieved. The reason this system needs to change is because we view animals as a resource and something that is for our taking (Regan, 1). Many of us, myself included, are guilty of having this attitude. I eat meat at almost every meal and when I’m eating it I’m not thinking about the animal's life that was taken, I’m thinking about how good it tastes. The only way we can change this attitude Regan says is “People must change their beliefs before they change their habits.” (Regan, 1). One theory that Regan has to change this attitude that so many of us

Throughout history many arguments have arose concerning the matter of Factory Farming and the way we obtain our meat. But it is now, in early times, that the well-being of the animals are being observed. People started to witness the inhumane treatment of the animals before they were slaughtered. In the novel, “Eating Animals” the author Jonathan Safran Foer discuss the different ways the animals are abused along with the living conditions of the animals. Make no mistake I’m not trying to convince anybody to stop eating meat because I wouldn’t be practicing what I preach

(Allusion) These animals are forced to live in their own personal hell (Metaphor) where they are used in different experiments and are often subject to forced feeding and inhalation in addition to being deprived of water and food for prolonged periods of time. They are restrained and burned so that scientists can study the healing process of wounds, while the pain they feel is to study the effects of remedies. Would you want to be restrained while scientists inject you with strange substances, or pour liquids in your eyes and spread creams on you? (Rhetorical Q) According to PETA (Allusion), more than 100 million animals are used every year in unnecessary, cruel and unreliable experiments (Repetition of key point) such as drug, food, chemical and cosmetic tests but exact numbers can not be provided because 95% of all the animals used are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. This act minimally protects live or dead cats, dogs, guinea pigs, rabbits, monkeys or hamsters but does not protect birds, mice, rats and farm animals used for food and other purposes. The act regulates transportation and housing of the animals but it does not regulate the actual experiments, which allows the scientists to do unnecessary tests on the animals without getting in any

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.

What do you think of when you hear the term Animal Rights? According to Gary Francione he says “It means that there is no moral justification for any institutionalized animal exploitation. Many people believe that as long as a person cares about animals, that caring makes someone an advocate of animal “rights.” But that is no more the case than merely caring for women makes one a feminist” (Francione). People think that if you care about animals you believe in the rights but that is not always the case some people just have animals for certain reasons like fighting, testing, and a really big problem is breeding for money. People get mad when animals are running loose but it isn’t the animal’s fault it is the owner because the owner doesn’t want to keep the animal in a yard or inside the house. Animal rights should be looked into from people that want to adopt or buy an animal because they need to know what to do and how to protect the animal. Animal cruelty is an unfortunate part of society that includes testing many different products on them; luckily, there are organizations that are trying to help ease this problem.

It is important to acknowledge animals, and their part in the moral community. Since animals are considered to be moral patients due to the fact they “lack rights or lack the cognitive powers needed to be a moral agent” (pg. 286). As human beings, and moral agents we “owe them duties of respect, which protect them against the current practices involved in factory farming” (pg.286).

Mohandas Gandhi once expressed, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Gandhi touches upon the subject of animal rights and how humans must be judged by the way animals are treated. This brings up many questions about animal rights such as what are the moral obligations humans have, if we have them, towards animals. And if we have these moral obligations towards animals, what are the implications of these obligations for humans? Observing animals rights from the viewpoints of a utilitarian such as Peter Singer, an Animal Rights Philosophy Specialist Tom Regan, and English Philosopher Roger Scruton, allows us to be able to fully develop and discuss the complexities of animal rights.

Animals’ lives are as important to them as ours are to us. We must stand up for them, as good people from other eras stood up or even risked their own lives in order to defend children from sweatshops and women’s right to vote and fight against massacres of entire groups of people and other acts of violence” (Benjamin).

The benefits of animal testing can be beneficial yet catastrophic at the same time. In order to see whether a product is safe for human use or to find a cure for infectious human diseases, animals seem to become expendable. Every year close to 130 million animals succumb to pain, suffering, and death worldwide as scientific experiments are conducted to dissolve humanities issues according to an article on Faunalytics. The lives of other living creatures should not be abused or sacrificed with only a portion of possible benefit to humanity, though some would disagree. Animal rights should be an important issue here as their pain and suffering is not worth benefits to humans when there are plenty of other suitable solutions to research problems.

Animal rights as well as animal welfare are different concepts that identify variant points in a continuum that extends from the exploitation of animals to the animal liberation. Animal rights can be perceived as the belief in the fact that humans have no right to take advantage of animals for their gains, in the farms, labs entertainment or in the wild as well as the prohibition of unnecessary cruelty against animals. A number of distinctions can be made when it comes to these terms, but at the end of the day, they all connote the concern for welfare and suffering of animals.