Do Animals Have A Say?: Comparative Analysis of Animal Rights, Human Wrongs and Proud to be Speciecist

Article 4: Duty and the Beast: animal experimentation and neglected interests, D Benatar. (2000) In this article, Benatar brings to the forefront the argument that experimentation on animals should be a great concern because of the suffering and loss of life in spite of the regulations and restrictions that are supposed to guide the practice. Benatar goes as far to claim that animal testing is uncharitable, and does not support

Thesis: Animal testing is a heavy topic that usually goes unnoticed. To many scientists, animal testing is beneficial and to society it is morally wrong.

Regan used the word “mature mammals” which doesn’t include fish, reptiles or birds (chicken and turkey). He should also have included mammalian babies because even though veal is a delicacy no one would ever consider doing that to the human baby then why a cow’s baby? I just wish he would have clarified that in his

In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be use for medical testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternative methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing is an essential part in medical research. My own view is that animals should not be used in medical testing because is no longer necessary now there are methods that are safer and have better results than animals do.

Animals very rarely serve as models for the human body. Many people are brought up with the idea that animal experimentation is necessary to insure the safety of humans, but in reality, these experiments are creating only harm to animals. Animals have done nothing to deserve this backlash, and by educating the public on the true unsuccessfulness of animal testing, the ethical side is forced out in the open. The argument ‘Animal Testing is Bad Science’ by the People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), argues that ethics dictate the value of each life, and that no life is overthrown by another. This well formulated argument effectively integrates ethos, logos, powerful structure, and robust premises to persuade the audience.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Regan states that instead of viewing animals as existing solely for human disposal, or as having value only because they retain the same feelings of pain and satisfaction humans do, we should consider animals as

Most of the procedures we have these days are there because animal testing has helped in developing it. In addition, when new treatments should be developed, there is no safer and more accurate way to prove it harmless than testing with animals. Although there are certain alternatives such as computers, undoubtedly for human rights scientists should choose the assured and guaranteed way of animal testing. Therefore, until a suitable substitution as exact and as precise as testing with animals appear, animal testing shall be mandatory. Animal rights should be protected, but it is not only animals that need to survive: we, as human beings, have the right, not a privilege, to live a healthy

People often use animals for a lot of experiments even though most people think that is it wrong. People make up countless excuses to why it’s okay to do this. But it is not okay. Animal researchers and such agree with my opinion that using animals for tests that we as humans would never want to do, is bad and very hypocritical, yet unfortunately there are just as many scientists who say that it is completely fine and that there isn’t really much harm brought to the animals. Mind you, these scientists have apparently never owned a beloved pet close to their heart. The two essays, "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs" by Tom Regan and "Proud to be Speciesist" by Stephen Rose, talk about the issue of animal rights, but are written on completely opposing

When discussing the issues faced from an ethical standpoint of animal rights it is important to consider the benefits animals bring to people and then question what rights animals are entitled to due to this (Fisher). Taking that into account, one must ask if giving them rights could possibly overstep on human rights and would animals even be able to enjoy rights (Fisher). It is often debated that the benefits and knowledge through experimentation of animals have led to life-saving advancements in the field of science and medicine (Fisher). The other side of the debate argues that even if these past benefits are justified, these type of experiments are no longer necessary and it is deemed unacceptable that wrongful treatment of animals is done for this purpose (Fisher). When it comes to the question of

Asking just about any animal rights activists on the thoughts of animal testing, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of them would address crucial flaws in many of the laws in regards to animals and how animals are supposedly “protected” by these laws. Trained scientists and researchers take on the key role of testing on animals in laboratories and facilities throughout the world, using the excuse that we are expanding knowledge and furthering medical research. In the United States alone, there are very few laws truly protecting animals from the unnecessary amounts of suffering the research forces upon them with many exceptions. Additionally, in reference to the scientists who perform these tests, the author of the article,

Animal testing is used frequently among the field of research to identify new cures of the modern science field to help cure disease, find cures, or simply identify variables in a theory. Yet, it is brought to question: is it morally wrong to test another living organism that is not a human being? Billions of animals lose their lives each year due to animal testing. Animals should be attributed to help enhance the fields of Psychological Research as long the experiments have a higher gain value than the level of cruelty that is imposed upon the animals that are being used for testing. Although the line between what is considered an effective research or pain caused for human financial benefit; there are two mindsets that are pointed out to continue animal research: the scientific view and the ethical view. But, most importantly to identify the purposes of a choice done by ethical egoism and contractarianism to benefit individuals financially and instead have utilitarianism content of moral norms to use on the animal research field.

The issue of animal testing is a widespread and very controversial topic. It entails carrying out torturous and harmful tests and experiments on animals (most commonly mice or rats, but also other animals like rabbits and guinea pigs) for scientific research, whether it be for medical causes, products or cosmetics. In many cases, animal testing is unavoidable – it is impossible to rid the world of something humans rely on so dearly; however, it is imperative that we recognize the moral impacts of our actions and stop relying on it as a major research tactic. It is quite odd that it continues to be commonly used, despite being largely ineffective, the abundance of alternatives available, and the moral issues it brings into light.

A majority of humans will show immense respect towards scientists and researchers. Their education and profound knowledge are praised in advancing our health care, households and human life in general. These successful studies however, may have included some form of harmful animal suffering to achieve the objectives of human growth and development. Some may argue that animal testing is morally essential in our ever-growing society as it allows researchers to determine progressive factors in not only the human species but the animal species as well (Rollin

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.

The study of good and bad, right and wrong, moral principles or value held by a person or society, promoting human welfare, maximizing freedom minimizing pain and suffering is called ethics. The discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings and also the value and moral status of the environment and its non-human contents is called environmental ethics. It considers the ethical relationship between the humans and the environment. Animal and animal rights are the highlighted topic in the environmental ethics.