Argument For Animal Rights, By Peter Singer

Animals first were used by humans as experiment subjects in Ancient Greece around 500 before the Common Era (BCE) (Coster 12). Animals have complex brains and minds, and compound nervous systems, live in multiplex societies, and show emotions that are often extremely closely related to those of humans (Parks 27). As scientist/philosopher Richard Ryder said, “To discriminate against others merely because they have a different physical appearance is very unintelligent. Such speciesism is as irrational

Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS

“Speciesism and the Idea of Equality” by Bonnie Steinbock is a rebuttal to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”. The issue presented is should animal rights be considered on the same par as human rights? The conclusion is no, animal rights shouldn’t be on the same standing as human rights. There are several reasons that support this conclusion. The first reason is that humans have abilities that animals don’t have. Steinbock states, “It is not arbitrary or smug, I think, to maintain that human beings have a different moral status from members of other species because of certain capacities which are characteristic of being human” (225). There are three sub points within this argument that help her case. They include: human

In her essay Speaking of Animal Rights, Warren (1987) argues for the weak animal rights position, which holds that non-human animals have weaker rights than human beings because non-human animals do not have the same moral status as us human beings (383-4). This is due to their lack of the ability to “reason well enough to function as autonomous moral agents” (385), which she believes is a requirement for being moral of human beings (384-5). In this essay, I will argue that Warren’s weak animal rights position misses the entire point about speaking of animals rights and we should instead recognize non-human animals as our moral equals and grant them full moral rights in virtue of their entitlement to dignified existence , rather than basing moral equality and rights upon rationality, as Warren indicates.

We are all animals. Although we like to believe we are superior and justify many of our actions on this ideology. The truth is quite different. We share countless, undeniable similarities with “animals” and to pretend we are some super being that transcends animals status is foolish.

In Peter Singer’s piece “All Animals Are Equal”, he begins his argument by an in-depth consideration of notable rights movements, such as the Black Liberation and women’s rights movement, then segues into the justification for equal consideration of rights regarding animals, before finally exposing the immorality behind factory farming and animal cruelty. According to Singer, “the basic principle of equality…is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (Singer 1974, 506). Based off proposed animals’ rights to equal consideration, Singer formats his main arguments against factory farming and the mistreatment of animals in general. These arguments stem from

In this podcast Peter Singer is talking about animal rights and how they should have the same rights as humans. He says that when you are thinking about the moral status of animals, the question you should ask yourself is not if they can reason or if they can speak. It is can they suffer just as much as humans? Singer says that the ability of animals to feel pain and pleasure makes them just as important as humans. He thinks that humans are “speciesisms” which is where human beings believe they can exploit animals just because they do not belong to the species Homo sapiens. He says that this is just as bad as sexism or racism which people freak out about every day. He then goes on to talk about how it is immoral to kill and eat meat because

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

Argument for Animal Rights The argument for animal rights assumes that animals posses their own lives and deserve to be assigned rights in order to protect their wellbeing. This view insists that animals are not merely goods utilised only to benefit mankind and they should be allowed to choose how they want to live their lives, free from the constraints of man. But if animals are given absolute rights, then surely they shouldn’t be allowed to kill each other, as this would be a violation of these rights.

The concept of animals rights is based on the belief that nonhuman animals have similar interests and rights to those of human beings. It would be considered, not only unlawful, but inhumane to hunt, test, and use humans for medical research. However, we do exactly that to nonhuman animals in hopes of creating a better and safer life for existing humans. Do we do it because human beings, as opposed to nonhuman animals, hold a special place in nature? That human good is the only good? Or is because human individuals hold true to the “top of of food

One of the topics that are debated the world over every year is the politics of animal rights. While there are a lot of people who are passionate about making a change and helping other people recognize the rights of animals, there are an equal number of people who abuse these rights for their own selfish reasons.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” Many animal activists see a strong comparison between animals used for research or entertainment and slaves (Day, 1994). Every year millions of animals are killed while being used for testing and entertainment. Some may say that animals do not have emotions so using them for these types of activities is acceptable. In spite of that, a huge question that arises is whether or not animals should have rights. This appears to be a controversial topic, considering that some people believe activities such as circuses, rodeos, and testing on animals is completely fine. It is evident that these people are unaware of

Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow these interests to be traded away as long as there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice. Animal rights means that animals, like humans, have interests that cannot be sacrificed or traded away just because it might benefit others. However, the rights position does not hold that rights are absolute; an animal’s rights, just like those of humans, must be limited, and rights can certainly conflict. Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Animal welfare allows these uses as long as “humane” guidelines are

However, it is the purpose of this essay to convince the reader otherwise. The question at hand is: do animals deserve rights? It must certainly be true. Humans deserve rights and this claim is made on numerous appeals. Of one of the

Throughout the developed world animal rights have steadily increased over the past few decades. The cause has been successful in raising awareness, as images of animals in desperate conditions played over a somber Sarah McLaughlin song are commonplace during commercial breaks on TV. It has also been successful in creating laws to protect animals and prosecute those that inflict harm upon innocent animals. There is a grey area when it comes to children who abuse animals, there is little to no legal recourse for those who are under 18. It is well documented that childhood behaviors are indicators of how that person will develop as an adult. Personality traits as well as traumatic events can influence a person’s actions later on in life, how