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.
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
They believe that animals are not conscious and they are not people, therefore humans can do what they wish, since they are the superior species. Aronson, the author of “Point: The Fight for Animal Rights,” asserts the counter argument: “Opponents of animal rights argue that animals have less value than humans, and as a result, are undeserving of rights” (Aronson). They are right when they say that animals are not equal to humans. There are many differences showing the difference between animals and humans. Because of these differences, humans believe they are the superior species. Humans put themselves above animals because they have a conscience, or through value and worth. Many people believe it is determined through intelligence. This is not the case however. In reality, animals live in this world along with everybody
Imagine one minute running freely on the vast green terrain surrounding you, then the next locked up in a cold, hard, cage. It sounds horrible, right? Who would want to be locked up with minimal area to stretch your legs, and have people staring at you constantly? I for one, would hate that. I imagine that most animals locked up would share the same feelings. I personally, am against animals being caged. They do not deserve that kind of lifestyle and should not have to live with it just because humans pay money to see it. Animals are suffering greatly from being locked away. When an animal is bought, traded or given to a zoo, the animals rights are stripped away from them.
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 rights is a very complicated issue. It’s not fair that they get tortured in a very inhumane way. Believe it or not that animals feel pain just like humans because we’re just a different species of animals. “Human demand for meat has led to a quicker production for demand, which means the meat industry production line doesn’t stop for anything, especially sick, disabled and not effectively stunned animals.” (Animal Rights) There are many cases of animals being mistreated and countless videos of them being tortured, getting kicked also bleeding to death. “Animals that are not stunned correctly are still butchered even when they are still conscious.” (Animal Rights) When eating meat, you’re “kidneys work 3x times hard than the kidneys of a vegetarian. There are some cases of retailers rejecting the meat because of the condition when delivered.” (Animal 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”.
Animal rights are another issue we are facing right now. There are many who believe that they have no rights, others say that they have the same rights as humans and others are in the middle of these two extremes issues. The topic is very complex because if animals have rights which one are those since the only way to protect them is by regulating them on how are they are treated or how can they be used. Animals are used in many ways such as food, medicine, research, cosmetics, cloth and sport among many other ways. Many who believe that the reason animals have no rights is because of the lack perception where they don’t feel or have pain like humans. There is no doubt that animals feel pain or pleasure and just for that reason they have rights, some people say. On the other hand, we cannot compare animals to humans because they are indeed different and for that reason, they cannot have the same rights. For example, animals can’t vote.
A Judeo-Christian interpretation from the Bible stated that “dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare (Aquinas T., 2006).”
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.
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.
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
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
Your unwitting response only proves how adamant you are to twist and bend the rules to your convenience. The rules clearly state that "the tenant will ALSO be notified", with no further stipulation indicating that said notification is to further be forwarded by the owner of the unit. Also, VERBAL complaints are invalid, as you have stated numerous times, whenever we have addresses our own concerns with other dogs/people in the building. Therefore, you are purposely suppressing the rights we are entitled to, which is absolutely ridiculous and indicative of your personal agenda to attack, harass and discriminate against us, for no reason; which is a clear violation of the regulations set forth by the FHA, not to mention a violation of the IDFPR oath you are supposed to uphold as a licensed community association manager.
Today we live in a world of opposites: animal lovers and activists who strive to make equality for all living things and people who have anthropocentric mindsets which causes them to believe that animals are undeserving of rights. Should not there be rights for all living things? Well, at least this is what I believe, and I did not come to this conclusion on my own. The way I view animal rights is tremendously influenced by my exposure to media, my personal experiences, and the values of my generation.