What Are The Arguments Against Animal Rights

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.

One of the most important aspects of American culture is the long history of conservation that very few countries have, thanks to the National Park Service, which is a Federal institution. The United States possesses some of the best­preserved landmarks in the world. However, in recent years, the government has proposed budget cuts to the NPS, which will severely limit its ability to properly maintain the parks. Because of the economic and historical

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”.

The abuse of Animals is increasing around the world, for personal and recreational uses. Animals are used in ancient and modern medicine to cure different types of illnesses and diseases. Animals are also being used for testing different types of hygiene products; which leave many of them are left scarred for life, while others are left to die in a cage. Animal rights groups around the world are working around the clock trying to stop this abuse, groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Are working around the clock to make sure such practices stop. This paper will demonstrate how modern liberals view animal rights, and how animals are viewed within society.

In the article “A Change of Heart About Animals”, Rifkin asserts that humans are treating animals in the most atrocious way, and he claims that in order for their lives to improve, we need to definitely adjust ours. He uses great amount of logos, and several experiments done with different animals and tries his best to closely relate animals to us, humans. Rifkin although, never inserts a call for action to this problem throughout his article. Instead, he puts the emphasis on the pathos of the argument. In the world we are living in today, there is about 8.7 million different living species. Whether they are land or marine animals, they do play a big role in our community such as being apart of the food pyramid, assisting handicapped people wherever they go, or being a transportation for people living on farms and fields. With this being said, the ranking of animals in our community has brought up a heated argument in connection to their rights and welfare. Eight legged, four legged, or two legged land or sea animals do not comprehend the concept of rights. If we, humans, give animals “rights”, we are basically inferring the fact that we are like animals, and they have the entitlement to share our rights. Although they don’t understand rights, the fact that many of these animals are being treated inhumanely is wrong and animal welfare should be ingrained into this community rather than the massive inhumane treatment.

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

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

When a cause is brought up and given light, it has a way of splitting people in how they react to it. And such has been true when it comes to granting new rights, because it’s brobdingnagian in our society that is always hungry for freedoms. We are split down the middle on whether, or not to consider animals, just like us, and thus deserve the rights we hold in our society today. On the other end, are people who don’t believe such rights should be given to animals. While the pro-arguments hold value, there is much more to see on the other end. As to why animals shouldn’t have a “Bill of Rights” like we as humans do. It’s shown in various different ways, even the most popular arguments held by the opposing side. Such as cows hurting the environment, zoo’s being inhumane, and pets. There are other factors as well to take into consideration such as food, psychology medicine, and even culture.

Firstly, animals in captivity show distraught behavior and don’t have the same abilities as those in the wild. For example, in the article The Loneliest Elephant written by Tracy Tullis, it states, “With limited space and and no infants to care for, captive elephants can become catatonically bored. A great majority of elephants in American zoos -- as much as 80 percent according to a 2013 study by the Honolulu Zoo -- develop disturbing neurotic behaviors, such as repetitive swaying and head bobbing.” Furthermore, it is clear that some animals in zoos behave differently, in a negative manner, in zoos than in their natural habitat (Tullis, 3). Also, a wildlife behavioral biologist Toni Frohof talks about Happy, an elephant kept in isolation at the Bronx Zoo. His words in The Loneliest Elephant was, “She exhibits self-awareness, yet one of the most important aspects of her psychological and physical life, the ability to be around other elephants, she’s been deprived of.” This shows, elephants who are caged in seclusion don’t feel the same as other elephants who get to be around each other 24/7; Happy is forced to be alone for the rest of her life (Tullis, 3). Concludingly, elephants and other animals can form mental and physical issues while caged or isolated.

The discretion between animal versus human equality has been a controversial subject for many years. Philosophers and activists have pushed this matter into debate among the general society in our culture. What exactly is moral equality for animals? Some say it is equal rights to animals, and others say it is equal consideration of the animal. To understand the scope of equality based on rights, one must unfold the determination of a right in itself. Carl Cohen argues that animals have no rights, because they do not have the ability to know what a right is, but should never be treated inhumanely (Cohen 339). I will argue that Cohen’s view on animal rights is valid and sound, because animals are of instinct nature and do not perceive in according to human perception. Also, the opposite view would have detrimental effects on our population, economy, and natural habitat. Nevertheless, animals have the ability to feel pain and that aspect, certainly, for the sake of our morality, cannot be ignored.

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.

Animals are a big part of many people’s lives. They provide companionship; they provide daily assistance to those that have deficits and are having difficulty functioning in their daily life; they provide security and help keep a watchful eye on things, plus so much more. And yet, with all that animals do for us, there are those that are treated with such little regard, care, and cruelty. They are unable to speak for themselves and therefore, they need a voice to speak for them.

On the contrary, animals are subjects of a life, therefore; they are entitled to rights and moral considerations, just as humans are entitled to rights and moral considerations. Although they cannot express their feelings as strongly as humans, animals are fully capable of pain and suffering. Despite the fact animal rights are weaker in strength and content, this does not establish they should be abandoned of rights altogether. It is typically burdensome for some humans to set aside their beliefs in that animals are necessary solely for the good of humanity. These individuals should realize, if in cases where animals are absolutely demanded for survival of humanity, it is of moral obligation to ensure they be treated in the most optimal humane aspects. Animals are deserving of their rights to entail them of a pleasurable life, free from pain. Although they cannot be considered moral agents, treating animals less than deserving of moral consideration, as well as denying them of their rights, is truly erroneous. As humans, it is our moral obligation to unceasingly take nonhuman animals into moral consideration, to ensure their rights and interests are contented, as well as see to it that all animals are treated no less than

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

Animal rights are an important topic to discuss and review. The trouble is the vast diversity of how people see humans and animals and how they are different and yet the same. Animals are in every aspect of our lives in how they are utilized to make our lives easier, to sustain us, or as a pet. Unfortunately, the line of animals and humans blurs as the widely known belief that we are a derivation of an animal and we should treat them as we would ourselves. This viewpoint, however, can be taken to an extreme as we see pets that can be pampered quite a bit. Relating back to the four authors in our text, there is considerable controversy on how animals should be treated. While some interesting positions arise with the various authors, to