Social And Moral Value Of Animal Welfare

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.

Regan explains that the connection between inherent value and the equality of those rights between humans and animals is important. While we treat humans that lack inherent qualities as they do, we should treat animals this same way as they do have a rudimentary awareness of what’s good and bad for

As a college student, I have seen things over the years that has concerned me on the world's approach to animal rights. Animals are still not treated fairly as humans are. In Vicki Hearn’s article, “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights”, she did not provide the audience with strong examples of ethos and logos but provided her audience with a numerous amount of pathos. People who own, work or care about animals and their opportunity to live as equal as humans do.

Philosopher Tom Regan also supports my argument that animals have rights similar to those of humans. Regan argues that the system as a whole needs to change in order for animals rights to be achieved. The reason this system needs to change is because we view animals as a resource and something that is for our taking (Regan, 1). Many of us, myself included, are guilty of having this attitude. I eat meat at almost every meal and when I’m eating it I’m not thinking about the animal's life that was taken, I’m thinking about how good it tastes. The only way we can change this attitude Regan says is “People must change their beliefs before they change their habits.” (Regan, 1). One theory that Regan has to change this attitude that so many of us

Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13-26). Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm

“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.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs. We need to acknowledge a problem. After identifying the issue, we must recognize that there is a need for change in society. In addition, he also reiterates the importance of the populace changing the way they view animals. The way society views animals will create a snowball effect that will influence politicians to also believe in animal rights.

In “The Case for Animal Rights”, Regan explores different philosophical ideologies regarding the treatment of animals by humans. He finds flaws with each having done so he puts forth the idea of animal rights as the philosophy which solves the conundrum. The ideologies he discards are such:

There are arguments made that would support the eating or medical testing of animals, but there are also other arguments that do not support eating or medical testing of animals. When a person views these arguments using a virtue ethics position, the result would have to be in accordance with the view that the right actions are produced by the virtuous characteristic. The question asked is what would the moral status of animals be according to a virtue ethicist’s perspective; and if virtuous ethics is can be applied to the animal’s moral status? There are two types of moral statuses, a moral agent and moral patient: A moral agent is an individual whose actions can be established by moral reasons; a moral patient is an individual who needs

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 Research has become a heated debate over the past few decades, reaching a high point around the end of the twentieth century yet it still continues through today. There are two main ways to look at this topic: the logos pro side and the pathos anti side. Those who are for animal testing realize the amazing benefits that can come out of such research while those against animal testing stand up for animals’ rights and try to find ways to better such research without killing so many innocent, defenseless animals. While both sides seem to carry their argument well, those against animal testing ruin their ethos by making their argument an emotional one while those who are for animal testing build

Catholic views on animal abuse is varied greatly. The ‘traditional’ view is that humans are made in a different image than animals. It proclaims that humans have been given ‘dominion’ over nature, meaning humans can use animals in accordance to their own needs (gen 1:28). However, many Catholics disagree and believe that God gave human ‘stewardship’ over the animals, which means we are put on this Earth to look after and care for God’s creation (Luke 12:6). There are a number of Catholic authorities that discourage animal abuse;

It is suggested that pitbull owners feed their pets the foods that have what the breed requires in nutritional value. The dog food should contain nutrient sources that are similar to that found in their native lands that their ancestors ate. The requirements for a pitbull are a balance of protein, carbohydrates, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals. Many dogs are taken to the vet because of nutritional related problems. If the dog is not getting the proper nutrients that their diet requires they can suffer from dry/itchy/flaky skin, hot spots, yeast infections in the ears, or thyroid-liver-kidney problems. The best diet for the pitbull is one that the owner makes fresh, using quality ingredients, without preservatives.

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.

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.