Aronson's Point: The Fight For Animal Rights

Animal rights are considered as “the rights of animals, claimed on ethical grounds, to the same humane treatment and protection from exploitation and abuse that are accorded to humans”(CITE). This means that individuals that believe in animal rights conceive the idea that animals should have the same rights and protections as humans do. With this

Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans do and because of this, they have been treated differently than humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians and hunting would need to be outlawed. That means we wouldn't be able to have hamburgers or hot dogs anymore. No hamburgers or hotdogs would mean no more barbques with your family and I mean come on who doesn’t want to spend time with there family? That is just so cruel to us and really messed up.+6

“Speciesism and the Idea of Equality” by Bonnie Steinbock is a rebuttal to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”. The issue presented is should animal rights be considered on the same par as human rights? The conclusion is no, animal rights shouldn’t be on the same standing as human rights. There are several reasons that support this conclusion. The first reason is that humans have abilities that animals don’t have. Steinbock states, “It is not arbitrary or smug, I think, to maintain that human beings have a different moral status from members of other species because of certain capacities which are characteristic of being human” (225). There are three sub points within this argument that help her case. They include: human

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

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 assert of ¨A Change Of Heart about Animals¨ by Jeremy Rifkin, the author strongly supports animals rights and has been working to prove animal intelligences and emotions can see understand through science. Rifkin include pig´s studies at Purdue University, where scientists found the animal can feel depressed under isolated conditions or health problems. Even Dr Arthur Saniotis, fellow with the University's School of Medical Sciences stated, ¨science tells us that animals can have cognitive faculties that are superior to human beings." Due to the rise of the agriculture evolution, people going to consume animals as property and began viewing human as superiority for our exclusive aptitude in reasoning. Human began to break themselves from the nature when technology and standard language imply in everyday life in the world.

Nowadays, People are more and more exploiting and handling animals as if they are some kind of resources. Some people view themselves are the most important beings on the planet, so everything can be done in order to ensure their survivals such as carnivorous eating and testing on animals. However, some considered this as humans violated morality, as animals have their own lives, have feelings and families as human posses. Therefore, in this essay, philosophers such as Tom Regan, Carl Cohen and Mary Anne Warren express their own individualistic approach on the subject of moral ethics and whether or not animals have rights related to John Stuart Mill.

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.

I understand the philosophy behind your belief that animals cannot possess rights. You have explained in great detail why “rights” are intrinsically human by nature. The idea behind having rights can only be applied to a “moral-being” because there must be reciprocity.

The concept of animals rights is based on the belief that nonhuman animals have similar interests and rights to those of human beings. It would be considered, not only unlawful, but inhumane to hunt, test, and use humans for medical research. However, we do exactly that to nonhuman animals in hopes of creating a better and safer life for existing humans. Do we do it because human beings, as opposed to nonhuman animals, hold a special place in nature? That human good is the only good? Or is because human individuals hold true to the “top of of food

On one side of the issue is the people that are for all animals should have equal rights. This side believes that many other animals are able to think to some extent and are certainly able to feel pain therefore non-human animals should be accorded rights. According to Peter Singer, professor of philosophy and director at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia and best known for his book Animal Liberation, he says “‘When humans fail to measure the capacity of animals to suffer, they become guilty of ‘speciesism,’ an injustice parallel to racism and sexism (Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints, 1996).’” This fact is not to say that all animals must be equal, it does mean that all animals should given equal consideration. Animals deserve the rights to have an equal claim on life, and not treated badly or subject to cruel acts. The other side that does not believe in equal treatment feel that “‘whenever one species of life is demonstrably more rich and developed than the other species, the former is always more valuable than the latter (Animal

We eat meat, we use woollen clothes. Sometimes we buy pets, such as-cat, puppy, bird etc. as our hobby. Zoo was our favourite place when we were child. We pass our time watching various types of animals in National Geography channel. After all these, we never give our attention to what impact they have for our activities. There is always a question about ‘’animal rights’’. Though both human and animal are the creation of God, human being never faces that much argument about having rights but animal does. After studying on this topic, I understood that Most of the argument goes against having animal rights. There are less right preserved for non-human being in environmental ethics.

The description of the Democrats on the issue of animal rights is absurd because all animals cannot drive, go to school, get married, etc. like humans. Democrats argue, “wild animals should have all the rights of humans, protected from any harm and allowed to die slow and agonizing deaths like most of the world’s humans do” (Felkins 1). The description of the democrats is absurd because the animal does not have ability to do a human task like to have a job, move around freely, get married, own property, go to school, or drive a vehicle. Wild animals are creatures, they do not have brain functions as humans do to accomplish these tasks. With that being said animals can think, but they do not have the ability to think and act like human do. Therefore, it is absurd to give animal human rights because wild animals do not have the ability to do humans tasks.

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

Is a very difficult question, some people think that animals are not equal to humans, and that is fine, it´s valid. The difficult part is when those people start treating animals with no respect. Believing that animals are equal to us means that we have to accept the animal’s rights. These are: