Argument for Animal Rights Essay

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 suffering of animals who are raised and slaughtered for food is not justified, since it is not necessary for us to eat animals to get the nutrition we need. We treat animals cruelly simply just to serve our trivial enjoyment of taste. In addition, Rachels asserts that it is impossible to treat the animals decently yet still produce a sufficient amount of meat. According to him, the humane production of millions of pounds of meat would be so costly that it would force most of us to become vegetarians, as most of us would not have the resources to be able to afford much meat. In response to the question that: “if meat could be produced humanely, without mistreating the animals prior to eating them painlessly, would there be anything wrong with it?” (Rachels 372), he argues that human being the subjects of biographical and not merely biological lives is what qualifies humans for rights; however, the animals with which we are most familiar are subjects of biographical lives and if we have the right to life on the basis of having a life, then those animals have rights to life as well. Thus, even if the farming practices are completely humane, killing the animals is still immoral. There are millions of vegetarians already, there is already less cruelty than there would be otherwise, so little effect does not equate none. He uses the analogy of slavery to

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”.

In his essay Against the Moral Standing of Animals, Peter Carruthers argues that animals have no moral standing and therefore no rights, unlike all humans.

If an individual were to read this without looking further into my logic, they might think I am a cold-hearted person who takes pleasure out of beating cute puppies. But I am far from this. As an animal lover and cattle producers, I have the utmost respect for animals and despise people who mistreat these creatures. But in this instance I take a deontological approach and agree with Cohen in that animals have no right, but we as human have a moral obligation to care for animals humanely. As Cohen states, animals lack the ability for free moral judgment, as they are not capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Cohen goes on to say that it is only within a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked (Cohen, 340). Therefore it is on the basis that animals are unable to make claims against others or have moral judgment that they do not have rights. But I find it vitally important that we as humans understand that we have an internal commitment or obligation to treat animals

Animal testing has been one of the issues that people are fighting overtime because of its moral. Even though some results of tests are successful on people, many people are still fighting for the animal’s rights. They believe that animals should have their own rights to live a free life where they belong, just like their species. In scientists point of view, animals have been one of the main subjects to test on, but a lot of them are currently looking forward to use and develop alternatives for the cruel act of animal testing.

The matters pertaining the animal rights and their suffering for the sake of harvesting their flesh have been an issue with a variety of perspectives. Puppies, Pigs and People, a piece by Alastair Norcross, bring to question the treatment towards livestock and what is immoral about the process. The argument proclaims that since we (humans) do not require meat as part of our diet then the exploit of raising animals for consumption (humanly or not) is immoral. On a counter side of the argument, a philosopher, Carl Cohen, states in his work that animals possess no moral rights thus we have the option to eat them despite if it is immoral or not. In the case of who I believe offers the most optimum solution, I believe Cohen is the most accurate in his summation of animal’s roles in our world. I will argue that people have no obligation to abstain from eating animals, but morally speaking animals should be kept in humane living conditions in order for it to meet our obligations towards these creatures.

Philosopher Tom Regan also supports my argument that animals have rights similar to those of humans. Regan argues that the system as a whole needs to change in order for animals rights to be achieved. The reason this system needs to change is because we view animals as a resource and something that is for our taking (Regan, 1). Many of us, myself included, are guilty of having this attitude. I eat meat at almost every meal and when I’m eating it I’m not thinking about the animal's life that was taken, I’m thinking about how good it tastes. The only way we can change this attitude Regan says is “People must change their beliefs before they change their habits.” (Regan, 1). One theory that Regan has to change this attitude that so many of us

Mark Rowlands in his article Contractarianism and Animal Rights focuses on John Rawl’s social contract argument. Rowlands writes that Rawls liberal egalitarian version of contractarianism is more than capable of assigning a direct moral status to non-human animals. This essay will set out Rowlands views with reference to philosophers and academics writing about the rights of non-human animals.

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.

Is the killing of animals wrong? This is an issue that is currently being argued. In the world there are people who kill animals to eat them while there are others that feel that it is inhumane to kill defenseless animals. There are many factors over which animals are killed. For example, animals that are suffering due to an illness, animals that have shown to be dangerous around us, for food, and to maintain the animal’s population balanced. Some people have argued that killing animals for food is not the only way to feed ourselves, since we produce vegetation. These people think that animals should have the same rights as humans. People feel this way because they feel that animals feel everything that we feel, such as pain, loss,

The use of animals for entertainment or gaming constitutes animal cruelty because they are subject to unjust suffering or harm. Animal rights activists are justified in their belief that the use of animals for entertainment or gaming constitutes animal cruelty because it is proven through factual evidence that animals suffer needlessly in the name of entertainment. Animals are victims of violence when they are forcefully involved in activities for the purpose of entertainment, and should not be exploited by humans because they are unable to make decisions for themselves. Although animals are incapable of giving consent to

Animal – what comes to your mind when you hear this word? Perhaps something furry, something feathery, something slimy, something with a beak or lots of sharp teeth, - right? I am sure this what comes to almost everyone’s mind when they think “Animal”.

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