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”.

In the article Rifkin explains that because of their feelings, animals should have some type of rights. This would go against any animal testing for big companies or scientific experiments that could solve medical cures. Wild animals are known to be dangerous and giving them rights would complicate things. For example; carnivores have a killing sense and would not think twice

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.

In today’s society animals still do not have all the rights that they deserve. We still perform medical experiments, hunt them for “fun” and food, and keep them locked up in cages for “entertainment” at zoos. If animals had rights humans would not be using them for selfish purposes for fun and entertainment. In the article by Jeremy Rifkin it is mentioned that “researchers are finding that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined. They feel

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” Jeremy Rifkin uses scientific evidence to reason with us that “many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined”. Rifkin suggests that animals should be treated better and be provided with better living conditions. He uses Betty and Koko as examples that animals have higher intellectual abilities and emotions than we thought. Many scientists also argued that animals do not have an understanding of death or capable of grief, but Rifkin counteracts that argument by using elephants as evidence to show that they are capable of grief.

The article “A Change of Heart About Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin informs readers that animals feel emotions very much similar to humans and should be given more rights. I agree with Rifkin’s statement, but to a certain extent.

Animals are used for a variety of different tests. Human disease cures are always tried on animals first, most make up must perform experiments with the product on animals first, and dogs and pigs are used to practice surgery on for surgeons. It is not fair and humane to conduct experiments on animals to make sure a product or procedure is safe for us to use or endure. There are no legitimate reasons that an animal’s life is worth less than our own. I think that animal's should have similar rights that people have because they too feel pain and experience emotions and just because they look different doesn’t mean that they are that much different than us.

Based on Jeremy Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart about Animals” I totally agree with what he has to say. As humans we are born with empathy. As we grow older we learn how to develop more empathy. One of our journeys while on this planet is to appeal to humans empathy. We learn how to have more empathy to those who we care about the most.

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.

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.

I believe that animal are capable of love towards us and each other. When animals are shown compassion, affection, love, any feeling actually they’ll show it back. Animals do have feelings the the documentary called “Love and Relationships with wild Animals” shows that. In “Love and Relationships with wild Animals” it shows us different examples of animals expressing their emotions towards their owners and other animals. It shows how the wild animals still remember their owners after years away from each other. Some of the animals were nurtured by their owner and went back to the wild, while other animals grew up with their owners. The ones nurtured would remember and play with their owners every time the owners would go and visit them in the wild.

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