Argumentative Essay: Do We Need Animal Rights?

For instance the household animals which we keep as pets have the right to live a happy fulfilled life, but the spider you washed down the stink or the slug you or a kid poured salt over did not because they are not a "higher" animal. Even though it might seem wrong or controversial for one to decide which are ‘higher’ animals, our society and government have decided this for us. For example household pets such as dogs and cats are hailed too much higher standards in the United States than Cows or Chickens. Which raises the question, is it ethically wrong for Animal rights activists to fight for the rights of some animals and not others?

The question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.

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

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.

Nevertheless, I do not mean that our moral obligations to them are identical to our moral obligations to other human beings – the view that Regan, many vegans, as well as those who are against speciesism. In his essay “The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism,” Regan argues that non-human animals deserve equal consideration and treatment, because they are, in many ways, similar to humans. Most of us nowadays would agree that non-human animals are not what Descartes called “automata,” that “have no mind and are unable to think;” they surely can feel pain and pleasure just like we do, and this has become a common knowledge (Regan, 4). However, as far as I am concerned, that non-human animals have sensations is in no way suggesting that our moral obligations to other humans need to be applied to non-human animals as well, regardless of the fact that we do have moral obligations to them. In other words, we are not entitled to treat them precisely the same way we treat other humans, because no matter how many similarities we share with them, they are still not humans; they do not and cannot reason rationally and make free choices like we do – at least we think they cannot. As a result, we are not obliged to treat them the way we treat other humans, when the concept of rights does not apply in their worlds, and they cannot act or think the way other humans

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.

When comparing Utilitarian view with Tom Regan’s Kantian account of animal rights there couple common things. The first one is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain from human and animals. The topic is about the animal rights and treatment of the animals. The treatment and rights should be equal to both humans and animals.

The concept of animals rights is based on the belief that nonhuman animals have similar interests and rights to those of human beings. It would be considered, not only unlawful, but inhumane to hunt, test, and use humans for medical research. However, we do exactly that to nonhuman animals in hopes of creating a better and safer life for existing humans. Do we do it because human beings, as opposed to nonhuman animals, hold a special place in nature? That human good is the only good? Or is because human individuals hold true to the “top of of food

In comparison to Buddhism the Christian view on animal rights has been a difficult and complicated one that's varied greatly depending on the context within history, with different Christian communities in different nations coming to very different conclusions. The matter is closely related to, but still distinct to and broader than, efforts by Christian vegetarians as well as Christian environmentalists. Majority viewpoints in many nations have held that animals must be treated humanely beyond mere inanimate objects, yet the details of how exactly to do that have remained under discussion.

Peter Singer addresses the ordeal of animal rights better than I have ever seen anyone address it. His analysis laid out in A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation is remarkably stated. He pushes the viewer to see animals as equals to us.

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

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

Argument for Animal Rights The argument for animal rights assumes that animals posses their own lives and deserve to be assigned rights in order to protect their wellbeing. This view insists that animals are not merely goods utilised only to benefit mankind and they should be allowed to choose how they want to live their lives, free from the constraints of man. But if animals are given absolute rights, then surely they shouldn’t be allowed to kill each other, as this would be a violation of these rights.

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.

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