Rights come from the ability to think not the ability to suffer. Many people can agree that animals need rights to be able to stay alive and be safe. But ask yourself is that really the only solution to saving animals? In my case, I believe that is not the only solution, for animals to be safe people need to realize it’s their fault animals are put through suffrage. Animal’s lives are put on the line due to the actions of human beings. Animals do not need rights to be protected. Human beings need to learn to behave morally, rather than on the act of animal rights, although the absence of cruelty does not make an act morally good. (Lewis) As stated above, “the absence of cruelty does not make an act morally good”, is a phrase that …show more content…
Animal rights is an ongoing fight and daily struggle for those involved in the livestock industries. While packing houses have gained new concepts and carry out procedures to morally and ethically conduct the harvest of animals, they still fight issues. Packing houses are subject to many laws and regulations in the United States. They are to follow rules as to how to properly harvest animals in a slaughter house. Cameras have been installed and USDA continually makes inspections. Packing houses that do not follow laws often suffer severe consequences. These consequences can result in shutting down, fines, and jail time. Organizations and groups have had a big part in the changes for animal rights in our country. Groups such as, Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and HSUS (Humane Society of the United States). They have investors and supporters that put large sums of money into these organizations to help protect animal rights as well as fight for them. There are pros and cons to these groups. One of the largest problems the agriculture and livestock industries face is uneducated people fighting for animal rights. Which I happen to believe is the largest struggle with animal rights and human morality. Animal rights teach us that certain things are wrong as a matter of principle, that there are some things that it is morally wrong to do to animals. (Lewis) When people only receive information from one side they are unaware of the whole situation.
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.
The starting point of this essay is to establish and lay out an animal rights claim. The point here is not to solely list which specific rights animals have, as that goes beyond the scope of this essay, but to discuss why animals do in fact have a claim to rights, and what this means for humans. The need to understand the intrinsic, or inherent value of animals allows us to see the base from which their claim to rights is derived. Inherent value refers to the idea that animals are valuable in themselves, not in what they provide us. Tom Regan, an animal ethicist, sets out the moral grounding from which we can
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”.
This is an argument that I could certainly see being made among many consumers. But before diving into the argument I believe it is first important to define the term factory farm that is most commonly used among animal rights activists in an antagonistic manner. But according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a factory farm is a large industrialized farm; especially: a farm on which large numbers of livestock are raised indoors in conditions intended to maximize production at minimal cost (Factory farm). But according to an article published by The American Farm Bureau Federation, 97 percent of farms are family-owned, not corporate factories (Farm Bureau). And while some animals are raised in confinement, there are strict laws and regulations in place that require a certain square footage of space per animal. These regulations permit enough space for the animals to move at free will while waste removal systems keep facilities clean. It is also important to remember that if an animal does not have adequate space, food and water availability, and a clean environment it will never be productive. While I realize that a “factory farm” may seem cruel, I refute the objection, as it is first important to remember that 97 percent of farms are family-owned and that those facilities where livestock are raised
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.
A quick comparison to Vicki Hearne’s “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights?” to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status”, might indicate Hearne’s argument is stronger due to her strategic and effective use of emotional appeals (i.e. pathos). These appeals allow Hearne to connect quickly and easily with her audience. Hearne is also quite clever in terms of stressing her occupation as an animal trainer. However, after a swift comparison of the two articles, it is evident that Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status” offers readers a stronger and more valid argument. Both Singer and Hearne are arguing their position on animal rights and the extent of human involvement. Since Hearne’s article is primarily based on her attempt to persuade her
Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13-26). Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm
“Nearly as many, 68 percent, were concerned or very concerned about the well-being of animals used in ‘sports’ or contests as well as animals in laboratories (67 percent) (Kretzer, 1).” Many people question whether an animal is capable of thought and emotions. Others feel as though animals are the equivalent of humans and should be treated as such. Since the 1800’s, animal rights has been a topic that has several different sides including two extremes. If animals can react to their environment, emote, and are aware of things done to or with them, then they should have similar rights to humans.
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.
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.
There is a large problem of animal cruelty linked to the food industry in the United States. Countless slaughterhouses, chicken farms, and other meat producers have been found guilty of harming animals and killing them inhumanely. This is something that clearly needs to change.
In Peter Singer’s piece “All Animals Are Equal”, he begins his argument by an in-depth consideration of notable rights movements, such as the Black Liberation and women’s rights movement, then segues into the justification for equal consideration of rights regarding animals, before finally exposing the immorality behind factory farming and animal cruelty. According to Singer, “the basic principle of equality…is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (Singer 1974, 506). Based off proposed animals’ rights to equal consideration, Singer formats his main arguments against factory farming and the mistreatment of animals in general. These arguments stem from
today we call them human rights" (McShea 34). The issue of whether or not to
For many years now the world has seen controversy over the rights of animals and if they think and feel like humans do. Many people see animals as mindless creatures or as food, while others think they have emotions and can feel pain. In other countries animal protection laws are in place that are strictly enforced and seem to work well with the system. In the United States however; some of the animal rights laws are considered to be useless and under-enforced (Animal Legal & Historical Center). More people today are beginning to see that animals should have rights and should be protected by laws and regulations (Animal Legal & Historical Center). Sadly there are many people residing in the United States who don’t take animal rights or protection laws seriously. These people abuse animals in many ways, including food industries that disobey the regulations set in place for the slaughter of animals used for consumption. Luckily for the animals there are people who fight for their rights and the enforcement of laws called animal rights activists.