The Argument For Animal Rights

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 question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.

They believe that animals are not conscious and they are not people, therefore humans can do what they wish, since they are the superior species. Aronson, the author of “Point: The Fight for Animal Rights,” asserts the counter argument: “Opponents of animal rights argue that animals have less value than humans, and as a result, are undeserving of rights” (Aronson). They are right when they say that animals are not equal to humans. There are many differences showing the difference between animals and humans. Because of these differences, humans believe they are the superior species. Humans put themselves above animals because they have a conscience, or through value and worth. Many people believe it is determined through intelligence. This is not the case however. In reality, animals live in this world along with everybody

Animal rights activists have rallied and petitioning for an animal bill of rights because they are stating that animals are only being considered “property” by law, being no different than a table and chair. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is really passionate about the document being published even having specific rights for animals with numbers and strong evidence to back up each right and claim, leaving little detail out. Also, in the article “A Change of Heart About Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin states “What these researchers are finding is that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined” (Rikin 2). I agree with his statement, because animals and humans have many similarities pointed out by many researchers over the many years. Rifkin provides specific evidence like Koko the gorilla, who passed an IQ test with a score of 70-95 or close to that range. I think it's pretty outstanding, depressing, and convenient that Koko is smarter than a majority than humans. There was also a parrot named Alex, who could communicate with it's owner. Alex was able to tell her owner how many of each colored shape was on a plate, he then asked for a glass of water and I think that is incredible that a bird was able to communicate with a human and they were both able to understand each other.

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

In Peter Singer’s essay, “Equality for Animals”, he argues that the principle of equal consideration of interests can extend beyond just the interests of human beings. He starts out saying just because there is oppression within our own species, does not mean that our attitude against animals should be taken less seriously. Going into several topics Singer tries to convey that we may have the wrong idea about animals.

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

Non-human animals should have the same rights that humans have such as not being used as food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation.

Weak Animal Rights theory primary concepts (1) that not all non-human animals have rights, only those that have sentient (2) the rights of sentient animals are not as strong as those of humans; humans have rights to the fullest, strongest sense. In this paper, I will criticize Mary Warren’s description for “weak animal rights” and her argument in support of it. Then, I will propose the objection to Warren’s theory, that by using sentient as the distinguishing characteristic promotes poor environmental policy.

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.

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

Animal rights are another issue we are facing right now. There are many who believe that they have no rights, others say that they have the same rights as humans and others are in the middle of these two extremes issues. The topic is very complex because if animals have rights which one are those since the only way to protect them is by regulating them on how are they are treated or how can they be used. Animals are used in many ways such as food, medicine, research, cosmetics, cloth and sport among many other ways. Many who believe that the reason animals have no rights is because of the lack perception where they don’t feel or have pain like humans. There is no doubt that animals feel pain or pleasure and just for that reason they have rights, some people say. On the other hand, we cannot compare animals to humans because they are indeed different and for that reason, they cannot have the same rights. For example, animals can’t vote.

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.

Peter Singer’s argues that we should take a utilitarian viewpoint on how people should treat animals. He sees that animals can, in some cases, be smarter than humans and should therefore have some rights in how the animals should be treated. His argument holds this general viewpoint, “..we [should] extend to other species the basic

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