Dignity To Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research

The idea of animal rights has been around for centuries. Even decades ago, people were taking action for the welfare of animals. Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger share this idea all the way back in 1994 when they said that there is evidence that scientist are concerned with animal welfare by acknowledge that they use the guidelines in place to protect animals during research, in order to have their work published (Bekoff 219). Guidelines are the basis for the moral and ethical treatment of animals. Each person may have his or her own standard, but having a standard among the entire population ensures the welfare of the animals. Unfortunately, these standards are not at a level to where the animals are being protected. Many animals in captivity are treated in ways that would shock the average person. Orcas for example, are starved until they do the desired task (Cowperthwaite). This form of operant condition can lead to success, but often leads to resentment and hostility towards the trainers.

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

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.

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

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.

Many researches are finding that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined. A percentage of people feel that concern should be brought upon how animals are treated. The Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Animal Bill of Rights is a petition to the United States Congress. The petition states the basic rights that all living beings other than humans should have and that our government should protect. It states the right of animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse. The right of laboratory animals not to be used in cruel or unnecessary experiments. The right of animals to be in a healthy diet, protective shelter and sufficient medical care.The right of wildlife to a natural habitat, ecologically good enough to a normal existence and self-sustaining population.The right of farmed animals to an environment that fulfill their basic physical and psychological needs. The right of animals to have their interest represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land. These are the six important keys in the act. No one can predict what actually happens to animals behind doors or even in nature, but it is fairly easy to say that not all animals are

In the article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, by Jeremy Rifkin argues about how scientists have shown and proven that there are many similarities between animals and humans. Jeremy Rifkin believes animals should be treated with more empathy and that the animals should be treated more like humans. I agree with this statement and that they should be treated better with more animal rights.

In the article “A Change Of Heart About Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin, he argues that science has shown the similarities between us humans and animals and about how we should show more “empathy” towards them. Along with that animal activist such as the “Animal Legal Defence Fund” is pushing to give animals a Bill Of Rights, but i truthfully disagree. I personally believe animals should have rights but to a certain extent.

The first article I choose was “ Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project Inc. v Stanley” by Barbara Jaffe is about a court case where two chimpanzees, Hercules and Leo, who are being held in at the State University of New York for research purposes. An organization called the petitioner is a non-profit organization in which is fighting to change the common law status of at least some nonhuman animals. The petitioner fights for rights such as liberty, morality, bodily integrity, bodily liberty, and human experience of entitlement. The argument of the article was whether a chimpanzee was a legal person or not. The idea that legal personhood does not necessarily mean being a human. Efforts to extend legal rights to chimpanzees are understandable; some day they may

In her essay Speaking of Animal Rights, Warren (1987) argues for the weak animal rights position, which holds that non-human animals have weaker rights than human beings because non-human animals do not have the same moral status as us human beings (383-4). This is due to their lack of the ability to “reason well enough to function as autonomous moral agents” (385), which she believes is a requirement for being moral of human beings (384-5). In this essay, I will argue that Warren’s weak animal rights position misses the entire point about speaking of animals rights and we should instead recognize non-human animals as our moral equals and grant them full moral rights in virtue of their entitlement to dignified existence , rather than basing moral equality and rights upon rationality, as Warren indicates.

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.

any discussion of rights must begin with human rights. How far are those rights to be extended -- does it even make sense to talk of extending them -- to the “animal kingdom”? The animal kingdom isn't composed only of cats and dogs, mice and monkeys. It includes slugs and lice, wasps and mosquitoes. How far can the concept of right be extended -- to not swatting a mosquito that is sucking your blood? To prevent your cat from hunting and killing a rat? Does an ant have as many rights as a gorilla? Most people would say no -- though I have met one activist who argued that even viruses had souls! I think most animal righters are really arguing that

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

“Nearly as many, 68 percent, were concerned or very concerned about the well-being of animals used in ‘sports’ or contests as well as animals in laboratories (67 percent) (Kretzer, 1).” Many people question whether an animal is capable of thought and emotions. Others feel as though animals are the equivalent of humans and should be treated as such. Since the 1800’s, animal rights has been a topic that has several different sides including two extremes. If animals can react to their environment, emote, and are aware of things done to or with them, then they should have similar rights to humans.