Oppression Of Animal Rights

The starting point of this essay is to establish and lay out an animal rights claim. The point here is not to solely list which specific rights animals have, as that goes beyond the scope of this essay, but to discuss why animals do in fact have a claim to rights, and what this means for humans. The need to understand the intrinsic, or inherent value of animals allows us to see the base from which their claim to rights is derived. Inherent value refers to the idea that animals are valuable in themselves, not in what they provide us. Tom Regan, an animal ethicist, sets out the moral grounding from which we can

Ever since a young age, I have been a passionate animal enthusiast. I cannot image a life without a dog by my side. Animals are not just pets, or food, or part of the environment. They are intelligent creatures and deserve to be treated as such. Animals have evolved just as we have. The evolution theory even says humans evolved from primates. So why do animals not have rights? They have a brain and can learn and grow, just as we can. It can also be argued that animals have a soul. I believe animals not only have dignity, but they also have rights.

Animals share the same right as human beings. To have a right is to have a claim or entitlement to something and to have that claim recognized by others. There are two types or rights; legal and moral rights. Legal rights are comulgated by law making part of government. Moral rights are stems from reason and worth for example life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I believe animals share both rights because the only difference between human beings and animals is basically the ability to speak.

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

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.

According to the “Universal Declaration of the Rights of Animals” written by the International League of the Rights of Animals in September of 1977 animals have similar right to those of humans. Animals have a right to live with respect and shall not be killed without reason. They shall not be denied the right to reproduce, or have the freedom of living in their natural habitat (Opposing Viewpoints 20). Activism in animal rights first began in the late 1960s because a documentary from Canada showed baby seals being beat to death with clubs was shown across the world. When people saw the documentary, they were outraged and started a massive animal-rights movement, which is now targeting factory farms (“Key Issue: Animal Rights” 1).

Animals are used for a variety of different tests. Human disease cures are always tried on animals first, most make up must perform experiments with the product on animals first, and dogs and pigs are used to practice surgery on for surgeons. It is not fair and humane to conduct experiments on animals to make sure a product or procedure is safe for us to use or endure. There are no legitimate reasons that an animal’s life is worth less than our own. I think that animal's should have similar rights that people have because they too feel pain and experience emotions and just because they look different doesn’t mean that they are that much different than us.

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.

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.

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.

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 idea that all animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives. It’s important to have animal rights because it prevents animals from living horrible, tortured lives for human benefit and entertainment. They have feelings and emotions too, they should be treated as humanely as possible at all times, they are not on this earth for human benefit and usage.

Animals have rights. This is a statement that very few people will disagree with. Animal cruelty as an end unto itself (i.e. for entertainment) is just wrong. Short of being a sociopath I really can’t imagine anyone saying or thinking otherwise. The real ethical question comes when humanity can benefit from a “cruelty” committed against an animal.

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