Animals Are Not Accorded Equal Rights

To answer this complex question, philosophy professor Bryan Norton poses some additional concerns relevant to this issue. He notes that if in fact keeping these animals in captivity is ethical, then we must also discuss what specifically humans want to conserve (Norton 15). Is it limited just to animal species, or can it extend to populations, ecosystems, and natural processes? If we simply identify wild animals, then we must ask ourselves if we are preserving a wild species if the animals themselves are forced to spend their lives in captivity? He mentions a common analogy used among zoo professionals who refer themselves to a modern day Noah’s ark, preserving each species by removing individuals for conservation. If zoos represent a sanctuary from extinction, then we must also address if there will ever be a natural habitat to reintroduce the animals into, or if they be forced to remain on the zoos “Ark” indefinitely (Norton 16). Though the work of various ethical scholars and philosophers may not be able to provide a concrete answer to all of the respective questions, I will discuss the concept of reintroduction when analyzing the third argument of this essay.

In Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

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

When a cause is brought up and given light, it has a way of splitting people in how they react to it. And such has been true when it comes to granting new rights, because it’s brobdingnagian in our society that is always hungry for freedoms. We are split down the middle on whether, or not to consider animals, just like us, and thus deserve the rights we hold in our society today. On the other end, are people who don’t believe such rights should be given to animals. While the pro-arguments hold value, there is much more to see on the other end. As to why animals shouldn’t have a “Bill of Rights” like we as humans do. It’s shown in various different ways, even the most popular arguments held by the opposing side. Such as cows hurting the environment, zoo’s being inhumane, and pets. There are other factors as well to take into consideration such as food, psychology medicine, and even culture.

In her essay Speaking of Animal Rights, Warren (1987) argues for the weak animal rights position, which holds that non-human animals have weaker rights than human beings because non-human animals do not have the same moral status as us human beings (383-4). This is due to their lack of the ability to “reason well enough to function as autonomous moral agents” (385), which she believes is a requirement for being moral of human beings (384-5). In this essay, I will argue that Warren’s weak animal rights position misses the entire point about speaking of animals rights and we should instead recognize non-human animals as our moral equals and grant them full moral rights in virtue of their entitlement to dignified existence , rather than basing moral equality and rights upon rationality, as Warren indicates.

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

Animals cannot posses’ rights, as they do not have the above capacities. The author points out that it doesn’t make sense when humans and nonhuman animals should be treated equally. A human knows that it is morally incorrect to kill a child, but an animal does not. For instance, “ Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra? Does a baby zebra have a right not to be eaten?”

In one way or another, animals impact people’s lives. Animals are intertwined with people in a multitude of ways. From the food on the table, the work they provide, the products in stores, or as a companion animals are interwoven into the fabric of everyday life. That is why the subject of what rights animals possess is often discussed and widely disputed. The benefits animals bring along with a clear definition of just what rights animals are entitled to are the main issues of the argument. Along with that, the theories of virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism all contribute a different viewpoint on how to approach the subject from an ethical standpoint.

For years we have struggled with rights water its humans or nonhumans, and what has rights. Who decides who has rights? There are many organizations that try to help make animal right known such as Friends of Animals, Animal Aid and many more. However, there are still injustices occurring nonhumans. I analyzed three articles to find out what causes nonhuman inequality.“Weighing and Protecting life: Beyond Speciesism, Welfarism, and legalism,” Steven Best will be my first source. Best focuses on the word speciesism, it goes in-depth into why people subconscious label animals as species. On the contrary Richard York, “Humanity and Inhumanity: Toward a Sociology of the Slaughterhouse” has a different point of view. York speaks

A question we are asked at least once in our lives is, “Are the rights reserved for humans and the rights reserved for animals equal in the amount of importance or value?” Peter Singer, a utilitarian, and Tom Regan, a deontologist both believe in animal rights. However, they don’t agree on every single aspect regarding the rights for animals. Singer believes humans and animals both have rights, but they don’t have the equal capacity to feel pleasure or pain. On the other hand, Regan’s views differ. He thinks that the rights for humans and animals are of equal value. I agree with them both. Animals should have rights and be treated with respect, but when it comes to saving my sister or my dog, I’d save my sister.

Today the world is made up of many groups fighting for the same basic right: equality.Yet, the ones who are unable to voice their opinions or speak their minds are left in the dust and at the whim of others opinions. Millions of animals all around the world are being neglected, tortured, abused, and all for the benefits of the human kind. However, there are individuals and organizations who are determined to make a change for these helpless animals such as: Peta, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Food Empowerment Project, and the list continues. Although, these animal activist groups are breaking boundaries that have never been broken before, there is still an argument for animal cruelty. The fight for animal equality is no different than the fights amongst our own kind. Nevertheless, many

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

We eat meat, we use woollen clothes. Sometimes we buy pets, such as-cat, puppy, bird etc. as our hobby. Zoo was our favourite place when we were child. We pass our time watching various types of animals in National Geography channel. After all these, we never give our attention to what impact they have for our activities. There is always a question about ‘’animal rights’’. Though both human and animal are the creation of God, human being never faces that much argument about having rights but animal does. After studying on this topic, I understood that Most of the argument goes against having animal rights. There are less right preserved for non-human being in environmental ethics.

Animals play an important role of human life. Wild animal is a kind that normally lives in the wild, for example: elephants, tigers, rhinos and many others. They live in the wild with spacious and natural environment, however many humans kept them in the zoo, as an attraction for the sake of the money. They didn’t think of the wild animals habitat, and there are some problems arise from keeping them in cages. The shock of being in captivity would depress the animals; they would even act hysterically and might hurt people near them. And it is not the animal to be fault. There are three main reasons why wild animals should not be kept in the zoos:

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