Animals Like Us By Jonathan Safran Foer

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”.

Michael Pollan’s, An Animal’s Place, analyzes the controversial topic of animal abuse while Pollan himself struggles to comprehend the relationship between humans and non-humans. Whether animals are used for food or clothing, Pollan’s impartial view of the moral ethics behind the treatment of animals acknowledges that we as readers are susceptible to influence and he encourages the questioning of our own beliefs. Rather than succumbing to Singer’s, All Animals are Equal demands of making it our “Moral obligation to cease supporting the practice” (pg.4), Pollan conveys the benefits as well as the concerns to the consummation of animals. From the personal connection Pollan establishes with his readers, his progressive beliefs

Peter Singer is one philosopher who attempts to answer this question. Singer being an advocate of animal equality argues that humans and animals are morally equal. He believes the unjust treatment of animals is derived from speciesism; describes the widespread discrimination

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

In discussion of inhumane treatment, a controversial issue is whether animals are entitled to their rights. While some argue that only humans have rights, others contend that animals should have the same privileges as humans. The author of “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin, claims that animals should have better treatment. Rifkin rhetorically changes one’s view on this subject without the consent of the reader. Rifkin begins by showing the animals’ human qualities, then giving a counter statement to common objections, and finally ends it by utilizing negative language.

As humans, we make decisions based on our comfort levels, choosing one thing over another. We prefer to not think about the way animals are killed or tortured, just to eat and enjoy them. We prefer to believe lobsters don't feel pain, and ignore how they cling to containers’ sides as they are being boiled alive. We prefer to choose our lobsters and watch them die, as opposed to choosing our cows and watch them be slaughtered. We choose which creatures to empathize with, and which to neglect. Wallace admits he cant justify these preferences we all have without sounding selfish towards the end of the essay. According to David Wallace, “the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it is also uncomfortable.” This paper presents the moral complications of animal cruelty and the unclarity of it

When we speak of exploitation, holocaust and slaughter, we think of slavery, the five million Jews killed during the Nazis Holocaust, and the many casualties of war, but these numbers pale and are a minuscule fraction compared to the number of non-human animals that are killed daily as a disposable service and resource for humans; their death is invisible, their horror silent. The same facts that shock us become acceptable data, a justifiable commodity of modern living. These anthropocentric sets of moral codes we use to rationalize our actions do not hold upon examination, and consistently brings us face to face with our own intrinsic prejudices.

Over the centuries, animals have suffered from cruelty from humans. In the United States, animals are beaten, neglected, or forced to struggle for survival. Animals have been inflicted with pain from humans for reasons other than self-defense. They have been slaughtered for their food and fur for personal gain in profit. In a majority of cases they have even been abused for someone’s own personal amusement or out of rage filled impulses. In some cases animals are found and rescued. They are given the second chance in life to experience what life should be like compared to what they once had.

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.

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

We are a nation of meat eaters. We are socialized from a young age to consume high levels of animal products. This deeply ingrained meat-eating tradition is a big part of the American standard diet. A visit to the local grocery store shows that there is no shortage of animal products. Isle by isle you see a plethora of meats, neatly packed and ready to be cooked, dairy products neatly shelved, and even candies that contain animal by-products. This is an omnivore’s utopia, allowing for a lifestyle that involves the overconsumption of meats and animal by-products. The rampant meat industry has managed to condition people to disassociate the meats in our grocery markets and the animals from which they came. Most people have become unaware omnivores, consuming whatever meats are available to them. This shift of moral degradation is evident in how we process and consume our meats. We have become a selfish society that values our own convenience and affordability of meat rather than the consideration of the animal. This begs the question, is eating meat inherently wrong and should we forbid meat consumption under any and all circumstances? To fully address this issue, we must first define the moral status of animals. So, are animals equal to humans in worth and value and should they receive similar treatment?

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

Animals have always played an essential role in many aspects of this world. Some people look upon these roles with favoritism, some with disgust. Animals are considered different from humans by some people because of their behavior, mannerisms or actions. Some animals are used as food by humans and other animals, while others are trapped for their furs. Many times people acquire animals for pets, only to neglect or mistreat them. For many years, the ethical treatment of animals has been a very controversial topic for moral discussion, often in reference to an ethical code or rule. In this paper, I will discuss these ethical issues identified with the treatment of animals as well as exploring these issues from a virtual ethicist’s

Modern day society is, in many aspects, capable of the overexploitation of animals; in a society that has no need for any exploitation of such living creature at all. The topic of animal exploitation goes far beyond the mistreatment of animals; consequently, I will be addressing and analyzing the factors such as: money, superiority, convenience, and tradition. Hunting and killing animals for fun is abode in modern society. Disregarding animals thoroughly, it is evident how our society throughout time treats its own people. Throughout history, people have endured many convivial iniquities and abuses. Past societies have justified slavery, sexual violence, wars, and child abuse by believing, in error, that those who are “different” don’t experience suffering and aren’t worthy of liberation. Just a century ago, human beings labeled as “different” by those straight, white men in power, often faced: torture, exploitation, and even death. We now have laws in place that prevent discrimination based on gender, race, religion, social class, age, and sexual orientation. Most of us are horrified to look back, historically, on the abuses inflicted on said “different” individuals; however, the same iniquities of animals go back centuries. It’s 2017 and we still abduct animals from their families, lock them up, force them to breed, perform, test and give up their desirable body components, all the while taking away everything natural and lawful to them for, the sake of our own curiosity,