Essay on Animal Usage is Needed to Benefit the Human Race

Ever since a young age, I have been a passionate animal enthusiast. I cannot image a life without a dog by my side. Animals are not just pets, or food, or part of the environment. They are intelligent creatures and deserve to be treated as such. Animals have evolved just as we have. The evolution theory even says humans evolved from primates. So why do animals not have rights? They have a brain and can learn and grow, just as we can. It can also be argued that animals have a soul. I believe animals not only have dignity, but they also have rights.

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”.

“Against Meat” by Jonathon Safran Foer (2009, New York Times Magazine) is intended to educate current non-vegetarians on what vegetarianism is, the benefits of it in terms of health and animal rights, and also the struggles of consistently being a vegetarian. Although Foer does not specifically express what a vegetarian is we can assume he is going off the generally known definition of a person who does not consume the meat of an animal, as oppose to a vegan who does not consume any animal products at all. According to an article about vegetarian Americans, 5% or 16 million Americans classify themselves as vegetarian in 2015, compared to the 1% back in 2009, making vegetarianism a growing trend throughout the US (Raw Food World). Foer proves his opinion on vegetarianism by backing it up with facts from the USDA and his own personal experiences with his babysitter, growing up struggling with being a vegetarian that loves meat, and the decision to marry and raise his child vegetarian. Foer does, however, have a few gaps in his argument about nutrition, the costs associated with vegetarianism, and the lack of a definition of vegetarian.

According to Carrie Packwood Freeman, animal welfare activists “(a) recognize animal sentience but belief nonhuman animals are not as worthy or moral respect as hare humans, (b) recognize nonhuman animals’ property status while wanting to limit the right of property owners, and (c) accepts trading away nonhuman animals’ interests in favor of human interests on if the latter is significant and necessary.” Understanding the difference between the two can really help one understand the polarization amongst different organizations and members of the Animal Rights movement. Although there is basically one large Animal Rights movement, there are many different ideologies and sub-movements amongst the different members and organizations, concerning both animal rights and animal welfare. More often than not, these differences can be overcome to work

There is much controversy and hypocrisy when it comes to animals. I, along with thousands of others, am part of the hypocrisy. I squirm and feel a deep sadness when I hear or see animals being abused, yet I am a meat-eater. I have learned that we all have different opinions and taste and we can not force others to change their ways. There will always be people, like me, perhaps, who will continue to eat meat and use animal products because that is what to us is food and normality. There are many ways to solutionize this; Become vegan or vegetarian, do protests and show others the suffering animals are put through, and/or simply let those who do not choose veganism to be themselves.

“They are sentimental beings who are clearly capable of experiencing pleasure pain and suffering. Consequently, respecting their intrinsic value entails releasing them from involuntary association with humans” (D'Silva and Turner). Animals do have emotions like every human does, equally sharing the same pain, happiness, and sadness feelings like people do. As a result animals should not have to go through painful experiences, since they can be referred to being the same as people. “The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) promotes appreciation for and humane treatment of animals, encourages enforcement of anticruelty laws, and works for the passage of legislation that strengthens existing animal protection laws” ("American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" ). Although there are many animal being abuse, there are also organizations to help animals get the protection they need. Many organizations like ASPCA, are trying to encourage anti-cruelty laws to be put into action.Not only do animals face getting treated unfairly, they are also being illegally hunted by criminals just to get some money off of them.

You might know that humans are dying in wars, but show some love to the animals that sacrifice their lives as well! Imagine that you were taken out of college or taken out of the place where you are now and be put into the battlefield without any sign-up sheets. The anxiety YOU have from the bullets zooming across your face, hoping that YOU would be alive and in one piece. Doesn’t that sound scary to you? This is what military animals have to live by. They are thrown into training and when they are old enough to be in battle, they don’t have the voice to say a simple “No.” if they had the choice to be in war. Indeed, military animals have saved countless amount of lives and have truly change the outcome of war, but is this all worth the sacrifice? The sacrifice of bringing your “best friend” that grew a bond with you and have the chance to die in front of you? Many people will believe that animals should be used in the modern warfare because history shows that animals like the messenger pigeon has delivered many messages that soldiers has wrote about the locations of enemy lines. While other people believe that animals shouldn’t be in war because it will traumatize the animal. In this paper I will present alternative position on the topic of animals that are used in the modern warfare, considering a variety of perspectives, and concluding with a position on animals that are used in battlefields that seems most justifiable.

Numerous vegans who choose to follow this lifestyle are also considered animal activists. Some call themselves “ethical vegans”. It would be even correct to say that all vegans are activists, even if that was not what captured them into this lifestyle in the first place. However, by not consuming meat, they are already boycotting against the meat industry. Either way, they strongly believe in their values, which mainly are compassion and respect. Their objective is to speak and advocate for the least heard and ignored earthlings: the animals. Some vegan activists compare the meat industry and what they are doing to the animals to the Holocaust, since numerous farms enslave, torture and murder the animals. Others, compare the animals to minority

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.

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

Animal rights are an important topic to discuss and review. The trouble is the vast diversity of how people see humans and animals and how they are different and yet the same. Animals are in every aspect of our lives in how they are utilized to make our lives easier, to sustain us, or as a pet. Unfortunately, the line of animals and humans blurs as the widely known belief that we are a derivation of an animal and we should treat them as we would ourselves. This viewpoint, however, can be taken to an extreme as we see pets that can be pampered quite a bit. Relating back to the four authors in our text, there is considerable controversy on how animals should be treated. While some interesting positions arise with the various authors, to

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.

In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.

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

There are several types of animals being used for research, but not surviving the test. Animals are similar to human beings; they have hearts just like human beings. Researchers have absolutely no sympathy for these animals, including the vicious ones. All animals need some type of affection from humans, or else there is a high possibility the animals will not survive. Personally, animal researching should be banned, but doing so, the researchers would have to find something else or someone else to test the products on to make sure the products are useable to humans.