Letter To Carl Cohen

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.

If the argument is that animals are being used for testing medicines because they are similar to human beings, shouldn’t the logic follow that because they are so similar to human beings and in need, we should care for them as well. Although, this is generally not the case. Researchers justify their experiments using the Animal Welfare Act or AWA saying that because of this act there are laws in place to stop the mistreatment of animals. Unfortunately, for some animals used in experimentation such as rats, mice, fish, and birds which make up roughly ninety-five percent of all animals used, they are not protected under this act. According to the Animal Welfare Act in 2016 they covered 820,812 animals (APHIS), which means there were about twenty-five million animals that were not covered by the AWA. Because of this lack of coverage, these animals are more likely to be abused and mistreated since they lack basic protection. Due to the new guidelines in the UK researchers like Thomas Genarelli won’t be able to continue their abuse.

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

One of the reasons why I believe animals should not have a Bill Of Rights is because they aren’t human. As Bob Stevens says, “Does a parrot understand what it is saying? Can an animal write a poem, or even a grocery list?”(61). Animals just live off instinct and from what they’ve learned from their parents, Rifkin says “Learning is passed on from parent to offspring”(60).

Many people nowadays have different views on what exactly to define animals as, and whether or not they deserve any rights. Some believe that they are nothing more than a childhood pet used for entertainment, while others believe that they are beautiful exquisite animals. Currently, animals inside of a household have more rights that cattle or chicken since they are treated as another member of the family. I think that all animals are worthy of moral consideration, not just house pets, since all animals have enough intelligence to be domesticated, they can all feel emotions such as pain and happiness, they can all care about the wellbeing of others, and they all play a critical role in the circle of life.

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.

Approximately 225 million animals are used for testing every year. Billions have been killed in the process. ("Questions and Answers About Biomedical Research.”) How can this be allowed? Isn’t it cruel to use animals to test products for humans? Many animal rights activists say, “yes” to this question. However, scientists argue it is necessary and animal research can help save human lives. There are probable arguments for both sides. But the dangers of using animals to test products for human use weighs an even greater risk than not using the animals. Alternatives are much more ethical.

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

Now, I will be presenting Peter Carruthers argument that animals do not have rights in the same way that humans do. Firstly, the basis for which Carruthers introduces his argument places emphasis viewing the issue from a contractualist perspective. Contractualism is a political position, which states that there are abstract contracts made between individuals, and if an individual breaks that contract, then the other involved does not need to respect the contract any further. Additionally, he advocates that since rights are mutually agreed upon contracts that can only be executed between two rational agents, then animals can not be applied to those rights due to their being non-rational beings. They are essentially slaves to their own instincts;

The tension between animal rights and medical/cosmetic research is an extreme issue in today’s society. Every day millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness, and long to roam free and use their minds, but all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying, painful procedure that will be performed on them next. Animal Research is a very well known act and has been around for some time. Most of the advancements in the 20th century are because of animals. Many of the products we use each day from medicines to household products are tested generally on animals. Many people around the world think animal research is the right thing to do because of the benefits humans may receive from it. Humans often benefit from successful animal research, although, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Animals and people are alike in many ways; they feel, think, behave, and experience pain. Animal testing is by far the most heartless act anyone could preform; it is inhumane; there are other alternatives and results are not necessarily reliable.

Animals and people are kinda the same because they feel, experience pain and think. Making researches on them is a way to violated their rights because they do not have any choice at all. They are constantly in pain and it causes permanent damages and all because they do not have someone who can defend them. It is important to take action and let people know the rights of the animals that they deserve the same as humans and just because they do not talk we are going to take their rights. Some people agree that because they are unable to talk they do not feel but they are wrong because it is worst their pain silently because they cannot defend

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.

I don’t believe that animals have rights. I would tend to agree with Carl Cohen when he states that “a right, properly understood, is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another” (Pojman and Vaughn, 2014, pg. 816). In the legal realm I completely agree that Cohen is correct because animals can’t have rights. They also to our knowledge at the moment have the capacity for moral judgment. However, we as humans have the capacity for moral judgment and I think that we should not torture animals. It is difficult though because as Cohen points out biomedical research requires it to be tested and it is seen as more acceptable to test it on animals than humans. While I’m not entirely sure how we could solve this issue I don’t think millions of animals should be killed. I don’t think that we are morally obligated to be vegetarians and while animals don’t have rights they really shouldn’t be tortured. Animals that are being used for

“Given the climate of poor regulatory oversight, many animals are also abused, neglected, and harmed in ways that violate the law”( “Animal Testing and the Law” ) , revealing the horrific underlying effect of animal testing that society does not want to display to the public. Not to mention, many animals are unprotected by the law and forced against their will to undergo a horrid experience—“legal tests include burning, poisoning, mutilating…, and dissecting without painkillers”( “Animal Testing and the Law” ). Many animals are caged behind closed doors that the public cannot see because scientists who use these techniques do not want to upset the public; however, the law is not forcefully used to protect animals in a harmful environment. Furthermore, animals have no voice to establish a strong faith for their future; humans determine the fate and well-being of the animals. Animal Welfare Act, a Federal law that addresses the standard of care animals receive at research facilities, excludes about 95 percent of animals used in research and has low protection for the rest ( “ Animal Testing and the Law” ). Precious animals used in experimental research should be protected fully, if animals are going to be used, otherwise animal testing should be banned if the laws cannot fulfill their duty of protection because of the horrible experiments that may take place. “M.A. Fox

On the contrary, animals are subjects of a life, therefore; they are entitled to rights and moral considerations, just as humans are entitled to rights and moral considerations. Although they cannot express their feelings as strongly as humans, animals are fully capable of pain and suffering. Despite the fact animal rights are weaker in strength and content, this does not establish they should be abandoned of rights altogether. It is typically burdensome for some humans to set aside their beliefs in that animals are necessary solely for the good of humanity. These individuals should realize, if in cases where animals are absolutely demanded for survival of humanity, it is of moral obligation to ensure they be treated in the most optimal humane aspects. Animals are deserving of their rights to entail them of a pleasurable life, free from pain. Although they cannot be considered moral agents, treating animals less than deserving of moral consideration, as well as denying them of their rights, is truly erroneous. As humans, it is our moral obligation to unceasingly take nonhuman animals into moral consideration, to ensure their rights and interests are contented, as well as see to it that all animals are treated no less than