Animals deserve to have a limited Bill of Rights. Animals are like humans in so many ways and for those reasons they deserve protection from the law protecting them to a certain extent. Research is proving that these animals are more and more like us than we have ever imagined and it's starts to make you reconsider the way we treat these animals. The big question that we all need to ask ourselves is, do animals deserve to have a Bill of Rights? If these animals are starting to prove that they are evolving to modern society and becoming more like humans than their rights in this society should evolve to those of a human’s rights also. These animals lives should not be disturbed and miserable for human entertainment. Animals should not be held against their will all for human entertainment. Holding them in these zoos and aquariums isn’t their natural habitat and cause change in many aspects of their lives. Some animals become depressed because they are taken away from their families to then be placed in a cage for the rest of their lives just to be looked at for human entertainment. In his article, “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin states that “studies on pigs’ social behavior funded by McDonald’s at Purdue University… have found that they crave affection and are easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other” (Rifkin). So one can only imagine what these other animals are going through. Why do they have to suffer, while we sit back and watch
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”.
According to Gallup.com a third of Americans want animals to have the same rights as people. The Animal Bill of Right implies that animals have the right to be free from exploitation and cruelty, It also prohibits laboratory animals to be used for research. Animals will also have healthy diets and medical care. It will also provide them with an environment that satisfies their needs. I do not believe we need a Bill of Rights for animals. This would not only be extreme but it will affect human culture, medical research, and cost of food
“In nature, animals naturally kill and eat each other. If the hawk does not care about the feelings of the rabbit it eats, why should humans be any different? (Bob Stevens 61)”. We need to eat certain animals in order to get specific nutrients and proteins that we need for our body to fully function correctly and efficiently. As well as social contact, how Rifkin states animals need affection and toys to play with. When he’s just overlooking the fact that there are still kids and even babies in this world who don’t even have that. He’s placing animals emotions ahead of our own childrens.
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.
Rifkin supports his argument by describing how similar animals are to humans. His purpose is to make his audience aware of animal cruelty within our society in order to bring change in the treatment of animals. In the passage it states that pigs crave attention just like us. “Studies on pigs' social behavior funded by McDonald's at Purdue University, for example, have found that they crave affection and are easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other. The lack of mental and physical stimuli can result in deterioration of health” (Rifkin). Animal have and crave affection just like us, they may not look like us but they aren’t too distinct from
There should not be an amendment to the constitution granting animals rights. The reason I feel there should not be any amendment is because they provide us with food, give us resources that we use daily and we also get long lasting clothes from using their fur or flesh. But I do believe there should be laws on how to properly kill animals we consume or use for their fur, flesh or meat.
As explained by the Jeremy Rifkin opinion piece, animals are capable of emotions in relation to time spent with others of their kind. A pig kept in isolations’ health deteriorates much faster than that of a pig kept in communal spaces with other pigs. Animals crave the same joys that we as human beings crave, such as community and playtime. By removing these stimuli, animal health, physically and mentally is hindered.
“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.
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 zoo is packed with children, running everywhere. They laugh and smile as they watch the animals at the zoo sleep. What these children do not realize is that these animals are dying on the inside. Animals that live at the zoo are extremely depressed. These animals can suffer severe psychological disorders from being out of their natural environment. But others argue that keeping these animals in captivity will help keep endangered species alive. However, the disadvantages of keeping animals in captivity are becoming more and more serious, and more people are beginning to believe that animals should not be held captive. Animals should not be kept in captivity because of the negative impact it can have
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.
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 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
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.
For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.