Essay on Animals’ 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”.

Hunting is a common activity all around the world, and if performed properly, can have many benefits to us and the rest of the planet. The art of hunting has been around since the beginning of time. Living off of the land used to be a necessity across the world, until the mass production of food came along. In America, people do not usually need to hunt to survive. However, the population of animal species needs to be controlled. Too many of one type of animal can cause a drastic change to any ecosystem. Food supplies decline quickly, leaving many animals without food. Hunting can help keep the population of a group of animals at a good number, making the lives of the other

According to Gallup.com a third of Americans want animals to have the same rights as people. The Animal Bill of Right implies that animals have the right to be free from exploitation and cruelty, It also prohibits laboratory animals to be used for research. Animals will also have healthy diets and medical care. It will also provide them with an environment that satisfies their needs. I do not believe we need a Bill of Rights for animals. This would not only be extreme but it will affect human culture, medical research, and cost of food

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 a civilized and cultivated country, wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen”("MARC FOLCO: Some hunting, fishing quotes to live by"). Hunters are the leading source for all conservation programs. Theodore Roosevelt was one of the most passionate hunters. People put down hunting like it’s a bad thing. Many hunters contribute billions of dollars the the economy. Hunting should not be banned because of the positive impacts it has on society.

There are hunters all over the world that use the sport as more than just enjoyment and a goal to get a trophy. Over 200 million animals are killed every year from hunting for the purpose of food and land protection. Farmers who grow corn and vegetables need to kill animals that eat the precious

Hunting was originally a resourceful activity and a necessity for survival. It was crucial to use the animal for food, clothes, and tools. With the exception of cultures who still depend on this method, there are many developed areas where this is not longer required. From the lack of needing to hunt animals for resources, sport hunting has emerged. This is the recreational act of killing animals to use as trophies. The problem with sport hunting is that it is an unnecessary and unreasonable activity that presents several dangers. In order to understand why, one must examine the effects it has on animals, humans, and the ecosystem. It is clear that sport hunting should have stricter regulations.

Is the human race ready to sacrifice lives in order to protect the welfare of animals? Is the human race ready to justify trading human lives for animal lives? Even though we should make every effort ensure that animals are not wantonly harmed in research, animals certainly do not have the same rights as humans do. Many animal rights activists condemn research on animals, citing that it is inhumane. But prohibiting research on animals would be even more inhumane. Research on animals has eradicated many diseases and saved the lives of millions, and discontinuing doing so will generate disastrous consequences. Because of extremely advantageous health advancements that have benefited, and will continue to benefit, the lives of human beings, research on animals should continue to be allowed.

Planet Earth is the one and only home for humans, and it’s their natural duty to protect it and all of its inhabitants. For many people, the fate of animals is of little importance, especially when there are so many of their own species suffering throughout the world. However, only when one has respect for nature can he or she come to appreciate for his or herself. In the past few decades, some animals have progressively come closer and closer to extinction. When compared to demographics 30 years ago, less than 5% of tiger and rhino populations remain in the wild (Congressional). The main culprits for this abominable crime against nature are avaricious poachers who seek personal gain and profit. Poaching is the illegal killing of

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

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.

Humans have been hunting on this planet for over two million years. Our ancestors used complex hunting techniques to ambush and kill antelopes, gazelles, and other large animals dated back to times before Christ. People all around the world still carry on the tradition, but the view on hunting is not the same as it was back then. The world is so industrialized, and people think hunting is cruel and useless because you can buy meat at grocery stores. But in reality, it is the reason the wildlife they see are not extinct. Harvesting game not only benefits the hunter with the meat, but also the land, the wildlife, and controls the game population; therefore, without it wildlife would starve, and land would not be managed.

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

Everyday thousands of animals are brutally murdered by people that participate in the recreational activity that is hunting. Hunting is an activity that involves a person attempting to kill or trap an animal. Hunting is mainly done to animals in the wildlife and often in cases are used for food, clothing, recreation or trade. In my opinion hunting is morally wrong.