Arguments Against Animal Rights

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

The statement by Paul McCartney rings true, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian.” Animal rights is a concept which people hardly ever consider in a serious light. Being born as a human being, having a superior mental capacity and sense of times makes people think that they can rule this world and use other living beings as they see fit. This mentality leads to people say things like “animals are born to eaten” or how Aristotle claimed “all of the nature exist specifically for the sake of men” and “that animal are merely instruments for humankind.” (Pg. 495). This way of thinking often leads to overconsumption of animals, cruelty to animals and loss of species.

Researchers treat animals right because they use them to uncover cures and treatment that humans can use. Scientist Hollis Cline and Mar Sanchez stated, “that animals in research are treated “humanely and with dignity” (Garner, 2016). These two scientists reassured the reader that animals subjected to testing are treated with respect. They are not treated in bad testing conditions, which may harm the animals and manipulate the outcome of the test. In addition to these scientists claim, there are also laws protecting animals, such as “federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)” (ProCon, 2017). Treating these animals with dignity is correct by the researchers because the animal is sacrificing his/her freedom to the outside world so it can be experiment on to find medical treatments and cures for

Animal rights activists have rallied and petitioning for an animal bill of rights because they are stating that animals are only being considered “property” by law, being no different than a table and chair. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is really passionate about the document being published even having specific rights for animals with numbers and strong evidence to back up each right and claim, leaving little detail out. Also, in the article “A Change of Heart About Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin states “What these researchers are finding is that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined” (Rikin 2). I agree with his statement, because animals and humans have many similarities pointed out by many researchers over the many years. Rifkin provides specific evidence like Koko the gorilla, who passed an IQ test with a score of 70-95 or close to that range. I think it's pretty outstanding, depressing, and convenient that Koko is smarter than a majority than humans. There was also a parrot named Alex, who could communicate with it's owner. Alex was able to tell her owner how many of each colored shape was on a plate, he then asked for a glass of water and I think that is incredible that a bird was able to communicate with a human and they were both able to understand each other.

Gary has been holding a position where he has been fighting for animal rights through his books. He argues that animals are seen as property instead of a person. There are several reason as to why animal rights are the way they are, and until laws are changed animals will continue to suffer.( Gary L. Francione,1996) To support his argument he studies the results from when common-law, civil-law traditions are involved. These laws are relevant, because it gives scientist and food distributor’s leverage to give reason as to why animals’ being considered property is not a form of abuse. Gary opposes this claim for a very good reason; he states that animals have a “defect”, such as their incapability to communicate using language. Gary finds that the issues with this are that, welfare is failing to recognize the interest of animals. In his observation he finds that the key to provide animals with useful rights is to convince society, exercise wellness benefits, and demand change.

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the only federal law that gives protection to warm -blooded animals in research laboratories. Under this law, it is the researchers’ job to make sure that they provide these animals pain relievers, provide them with the best veterinary care, housing, and food. This law only protects ten percent of the lab animals. The rest of the ninety percent of animals in labs aren’t protected: rats, mice and birds. This means legally the researchers do not have to provide these unprotected lab animals with decent care at all. Researchers can choose to treat these unprotected animals however they want and with as many rats, mice and birds as they please. Knowing how unfair the Welfare Act is towards the many lab animals it should be protecting, the voters should inform and show concern to their legislators in order to stop the mistreatment of these animals. The Animal Welfare Act should protect all animals being tested in research laboratories.

Animal rights activists are rallying and petitioning for an animal bill of rights because they are stating that animals are only being considered “property” by law, being no different than a table and chair. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is really passionate about the document being published even having specific rights for animals with numbering and strong evidence to back up each right and claim, leaving little detail out. Also, in the article “A Change of Heart About Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin states “What these researchers are finding is that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined” (Rikin 2). I agree with his statement, because animals and humans have many similarities pointed out by many researchers over the many years we have existed on this planet. He provides specific evidence like Koko the gorilla, who passed an IQ test with a score of 70-95 or around that range and basically I think it's pretty amazing, sad, and ironic that Koko is smarter than a majority than humans. There was also a parrot named alex who could communicate with it's owner and tell her how many of each colored shape was on a plate which was presented to him, and literally asked for a glass of water and I think that is honestly incredible.

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.

can be improved upon. The Animal Welfare act encompasses only a handful of species. It excludes cold-blooded animals, as well as farmed animals raised for food and fiber or used in agricultural research (Cows, pigs, etc.). Neavs.org concludes, “less than 10% of animals in labs are covered by the AWA (dogs, cats, nonhuman primates—such as chimpanzees and monkeys—guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, and other warm-blooded animals), the law sets minimum standards for housing, feeding, handling, veterinary care, and for some species like chimpanzees, their psychological well-being.”. Many are deceived by this act thinking that all animals are given medical care and attention in laboratories but that is unquestionably false as it is evident that more

Animal rights is the philosophy or idea that all animals should be able to live a life free from human exploitation pain and suffering. According to Gale ” The idea of animal rights has roots in ancient times. In Greek philosophy, the animists believed that both animals and people had souls. The vitalists believed that humans were animals but at the top of the chain and could use animals for their benefit.” ( Animals Rights, par.2). In the early twentieth century in the United States, there was no law that regards to animal experimentation. In 1937 there was a pharmaceutical company that developed medicine called Elixir Sulfanilamide. When the medicine was released the company was unaware that the substance was harmful because the drug

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 many years now the world has seen controversy over the rights of animals and if they think and feel like humans do. Many people see animals as mindless creatures or as food, while others think they have emotions and can feel pain. In other countries animal protection laws are in place that are strictly enforced and seem to work well with the system. In the United States however; some of the animal rights laws are considered to be useless and under-enforced (Animal Legal & Historical Center). More people today are beginning to see that animals should have rights and should be protected by laws and regulations (Animal Legal & Historical Center). Sadly there are many people residing in the United States who don’t take animal rights or protection laws seriously. These people abuse animals in many ways, including food industries that disobey the regulations set in place for the slaughter of animals used for consumption. Luckily for the animals there are people who fight for their rights and the enforcement of laws called animal rights activists.

Society view living creatures in two ways: as equal to ourselves or simply as lowly organisms. We tend to underestimate that since they are not humans, they do not undergo the feelings we experience. Animals want to be treated the way we want to be treated. In discussions of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether to grant animals legal rights. On one hand, many animal activists argue that animals need their own Bill of Rights to better safeguard them against cruelty and abuse. On the other hand, some conservatives maintain that adding further protections for animals is extreme, financially burdensome, and harmful to humans. Still others insist on a middle-of-the-road approach to improving the quality of life for animals

Animals Rights is a big discussion that has been around for while. Many argue since animals aren’t human, it doesn’t matter how they are treated or taken care of. There are others that do care how our animals are treated and taken care of. Animal rights are rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans. This topic has been around for a while but has become more absolute (Environmental Encyclopedia, Opposing Viewpoint). Animal rights involves personal, social, legal, religious, cultural values, belief, and decisions. This alone causes the viewpoint to vary based on many factors. Add in the many benefits animals have for humans and the lines are blurred further. Animals should be treated humanely as they are living breathing beings and are aware of their lives. Animals have similar levels of biological complexity, they make conscious choices, and they are conscious and aware they exist.

Vivisection is the practice of performing operations on live animals for the purpose of experimentation or scientific research. Due to this being legal, there are very slim rules for what cannot be done inside a lab. In the United States of America, over twenty-five million animals are used for experimentation, product and cosmetic testing, and scientific research. There are many different kinds of animals in labs; dogs, cats, chimpanzees, pigs, and sheep, but the majority of the animals are rats, mice, and birds. The lives of animals in a lab can be compared to that of a human being institutionalized or imprisoned. The animals in labs often live a very stressful, unnatural life of deprivation and confinement. Animals are subjected to many types of testing in labs. They are being infected with diseases to test new drugs, long term social isolation, blinding, burning of their skin, and these are all things that people find very unethical. “The question is not, can they reason, nor, can they talk. But, can they suffer?” (Bentham).