Argumentative Essay On 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”.

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

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.

Should animals in Captivity be allowed? Animals in Captivity should be allowed because they get the medicine they need, animals can live longer, and the animals can get smarter. The first reason animals in captivity should be allowed is that animals can get healthy. There are rehabilitation programs that nurse animals back to health.Veterinarians can prevent and control a disease. Second, animals can live longer in captivity. In the article, by Hannah J. O’regan and Andrew C. Kitchener states, “Gorillas live for more than 50 years in captivity compared to 35 years in the wild” (223). The animals diets also help them live longer. Lastly animals can get smarter. Animals in captivity do more activities making them smarter. For example, “Rats raised in enriched environments had larger brains”(O’regan and Kitchener 224). Animals in captivity should be allowed because they are able to get healthier, their lifespan increases, and they get more intelligent.

In 1984, members from the Animal Liberation Front got footage of scientists working on head injuries. They were using un-anesthetized baboons for testing. These scientists were giving the injuries to the baboons themselves before trying to treat them. The Animal Liberation Front showed the government the tape and they stopped founding the experiments. Studies say around ten percent of the animals tested on each year do not receive pain killers. An animal welfare advocate, Jeremy Bentham says this "Can they reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?" They can suffer, they feel pain. Each year animals are shocked, poisoned, starved, and burned. They should ban animal testing for good.

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

If you had the choice to live or die which would you choose? If you had the alternative to live in a cage or in a house which would you select? If you had the option to have experiments that caused you pain preformed on you would you? The truth is that most of use would rather live, reside in a house and would not be a part of an experiment that caused us pain. However, most people accept the elements of the above conditions for non-human animals. Non-human animals should not be a part of destruction, pain, incarceration and underprivileged conditions that are caused by humans.

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.

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

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.

“The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi. These famous words still ring true in today’s society as we struggle to overcome the scientific experimentation on animals. Animals have acted as the archstone of human civilization since the dawn of man, from a source of food, to companionship. However, in the past century, we have been blurring the line between environmental entitlement and environmental rape. Every member of the human race interacts and depends on animals, and we owe them a certain level of respect in our society. Animal Experimentation should be banned in all forms within the borders of the United States; prohibited under an expansion of the Animal Welfare Act. This paper will explore the problems, causes and solutions pertaining to animal experimentation.

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