Animal Rights What Everyone Needs To Know Analysis

For many years there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not animals should be given rights, even there own bill of rights. Some who are against the animal bill of rights argue that testing products on animals is important to the safety of humans. Others who want the new bill of rights claim that animals have feelings and that science is treating them inhumanely. Animal activists also add that animals are intelligent beings and are aware of how they are treated. Based on science proving animal activists correct on many of their points, this calls for a new bill of rights, in the United States, especially written for the protection and care of wild and domestic animals.

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”.

The abuse of Animals is increasing around the world, for personal and recreational uses. Animals are used in ancient and modern medicine to cure different types of illnesses and diseases. Animals are also being used for testing different types of hygiene products; which leave many of them are left scarred for life, while others are left to die in a cage. Animal rights groups around the world are working around the clock trying to stop this abuse, groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Are working around the clock to make sure such practices stop. This paper will demonstrate how modern liberals view animal rights, and how animals are viewed within society.

Animals are found throughout lives of humans. As companions, entertainment, test subjects and food, animals serve vital roles throughout our lives.The Animal Bill of Rights, through the Animal Legal Defense Fund, attempts to defend the basic legal rights of all animals. However, to weigh the need for such an act, one must compare the suffering of animals to the benefits such suffering gives to humankind. It’s much more important to highlight the crucial medical advances that lab animals have provided over the injustices they may suffer, but this suffering can not and should not be ignored. It is with measure that we do not enact a bill of rights for animals, however we bring new awareness of animal research and the ethical treatment of all

Shanks, Niall. “Animal Rights.” Social Issues in America: An Encyclopedia, edited by James Ciment, Sharpe Reference, Armonk, NY, 2013, pp. 159–172. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=unio34164&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE|CX7037300016&asid=2e6ea3a4956c6381549e4bb988df43d5. Accessed Feb.

Warrant: Humans believe they have authority over the animal kingdom. This means that mankind tries to control what is going in the environment.

The idea of animal rights has been around for centuries. Even decades ago, people were taking action for the welfare of animals. Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger share this idea all the way back in 1994 when they said that there is evidence that scientist are concerned with animal welfare by acknowledge that they use the guidelines in place to protect animals during research, in order to have their work published (Bekoff 219). Guidelines are the basis for the moral and ethical treatment of animals. Each person may have his or her own standard, but having a standard among the entire population ensures the welfare of the animals. Unfortunately, these standards are not at a level to where the animals are being protected. Many animals in captivity are treated in ways that would shock the average person. Orcas for example, are starved until they do the desired task (Cowperthwaite). This form of operant condition can lead to success, but often leads to resentment and hostility towards the trainers.

Regan, Tom. "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs." Forming a Critical Perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2010. 336-40. Print.

Peter Singer and Tom Regan are two important philosophers when it comes to securing the protection of non-human animals through gaining moral considerability. Both philosophers have the same end goal, equality for animals, but each philosopher takes a different path to get there. In this essay I will discuss both Singer’s and Regan’s methods that they feel are the best in accomplishing moral considerability. I will first begin with Singer’s utilitarian approach and then move on to discuss Regan’s rights approach. Once I have fully described both arguments I will then discuss how the approaches are similar and different. I will then argue that Regan has the stronger approach in securing animal moral considerability through his more realistic

Gary has been holding a position where he has been fighting for animal rights through his books. He argues that animals are seen as property instead of a person. There are several reason as to why animal rights are the way they are, and until laws are changed animals will continue to suffer.( Gary L. Francione,1996) To support his argument he studies the results from when common-law, civil-law traditions are involved. These laws are relevant, because it gives scientist and food distributor’s leverage to give reason as to why animals’ being considered property is not a form of abuse. Gary opposes this claim for a very good reason; he states that animals have a “defect”, such as their incapability to communicate using language. Gary finds that the issues with this are that, welfare is failing to recognize the interest of animals. In his observation he finds that the key to provide animals with useful rights is to convince society, exercise wellness benefits, and demand change.

Whether we think about it or not, our views on animal rights affect the choices we make every day from the foods we eat, the clothes we wear, the products we use on our skin, the medicine we take, and even the pets we may or may not keep in our home. Each of these choices hinge on our views of animal rights. Although animal rights are not a new issue we are facing here in the U.S., recent events have brought them back into the foreground. News stories like the slaying of Cecil the lion, and Harambe the gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo in this past year have brought renewed interest to those of all ages thanks to social media and national press time.

First, Steven Best, argues that humans deny rights to animals due to the labels we give them. We label animals speciesism as a way to justify our actions on how we treat them. Second, he stated, “might be a philosophical nature issue arises from the logical meaningless way we reject any attempt to compare moral values to nonhuman forms”(Best 4).This can be interpreted as humans ignorance. Best makes a point that the way we express ourselves subconsciously grants us the permission to test, label, and slaughter nonhuman life for our benefits or

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.

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

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another