Animal Rights 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”.

According to Gallup.com a third of Americans want animals to have the same rights as people. The Animal Bill of Right implies that animals have the right to be free from exploitation and cruelty, It also prohibits laboratory animals to be used for research. Animals will also have healthy diets and medical care. It will also provide them with an environment that satisfies their needs. I do not believe we need a Bill of Rights for animals. This would not only be extreme but it will affect human culture, medical research, and cost of food

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 Draize Test is an acute toxicity test widely used by cosmetic companies to test whether their products will cause irritation or other side effects in our eyes. As FDA states “In the eye version of the test, rabbits are placed in restraining stocks so that they cannot wipe their eyes. Their eyelids are pulled apart, and the substance is rubbed onto the eye.”.

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.

When discussing the issues faced from an ethical standpoint of animal rights it is important to consider the benefits animals bring to people and then question what rights animals are entitled to due to this (Fisher). Taking that into account, one must ask if giving them rights could possibly overstep on human rights and would animals even be able to enjoy rights (Fisher). It is often debated that the benefits and knowledge through experimentation of animals have led to life-saving advancements in the field of science and medicine (Fisher). The other side of the debate argues that even if these past benefits are justified, these type of experiments are no longer necessary and it is deemed unacceptable that wrongful treatment of animals is done for this purpose (Fisher). When it comes to the question of

Animal testing began in the 1920’s after a mascara darkener caused the side effect of losing the ability of sight for women who used the product (aboutanimaltesting). The United States Food and Drug Administrator then passed the Federal food, drug and cosmetic act in 1938 which gave authority for others to test that their products were safe to use (about animal testing and Wikipedia). Furthermore, animal testing is still present in the twenty-first century as mice, rabbits, rats, guinee pigs and hamsters are still tested on (humane society). These animals are used to test for skin sensitization, eye irritation and the rate of carcinogenicity (thedodo). Although after the animals have tested the products they die because of asphyxiation (lack

The barbaric practice of animal testing has been happening since the 19th century, and cosmetics testing on animals has been around since the mid 1900’s, when a woman was injured by using mascara (Murnaghan, "Animal Testing Timeline"). The woman received burns on her eyes, and ultimately was blinded by her makeup. This incidence caused the Food and Drug Administration to pass the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, which introduced testing cosmetics on animals to prevent injuries similar to this from happening (Murnaghan, "Animal Testing Timeline").

The act of testing cosmetic and household products on animals is inhumane. Animals have rights also, and for humans to test products on them for their benefit is heartbreaking. The use of rabbits being used to test shampoo and mascara in their eyes blinds them. The European Union and Israel have banned cosmetic and cosmetic ingredients being tested on animals in their country. Those countries have also banned imports with cosmetics tested on other animals from other countries. China is slowly making the decision to ban animal testing for cosmetics as well. India has temporarily banned the testing of cosmetics and household products on animals, and is permanently in effect in November 2014. According to Peta, “Unfortunately, things

Animal rights is the idea that all animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives. It’s important to have animal rights because it prevents animals from living horrible, tortured lives for human benefit and entertainment. They have feelings and emotions too, they should be treated as humanely as possible at all times, they are not on this earth for human benefit and usage.

Why is it that we as a society condemn the actions of a man against a man but very rarely a man against an animal? I think this question must be understood if we are ever to change the rights animals have. As of yet I don't believe animals have any actual rights. Rather humans have rights that involve animals. If we are to truly allow animals to have rights the same or similar to humans then we must first define what it is that makes us feel as if they are entitled to rights.

Animal testing has been a cruel form to help humanity by fulfilling desires that are not needed for one’s survival. Imperative processes have been executed for minor reasons such as creating eyeshadows, lipsticks, and many other cosmetic objects. However, these minor reasons are simply conducted in order to fulfill a human’s satisfaction, which is quite unnecessary. There are several methods of testing on animals, however, two major types include Acute Toxicity tests and Eye and Skin-Irritation tests. Acute Toxicity tests are being used to identify the intensive effects of any kind of product, whether it’s a little bottle of eyeliner, or a small palette of eyeshadow. According to PETA,(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) examiners perform this process by forced-activity such as inhalation, burning the skin, paralyzing

backs and they were dragging their hind legs (Reed 38). While in the lab, the

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