The Case For Animal Rights

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

For years, philosophers, humanitarians, and support groups, take in mind the popular organization PETA, have been advocating for animal rights. Animal rights are the benefits humans provide to animals. These benefits are protection against abuse and give animals humane treatment. Peter Singer is one of the many to introduce animal welfare, starting with his book titled Animal Liberation. Some support the idea of not using animals as a food source, clothing and other animal related products, while vegans go as far as to boycott and protest companies that use the animals suffering for profit by creating animal-by products. Why should we extend equal consideration of interests to animals? How different should those rights be from human rights?

The Animal Bill of Rights is meant to protect animals that don’t have legal protection. There are laws that protect some of the animals, but are often insufficient and full of loopholes. In this society we have many people who think the total opposite of defending the animals. It may be because of selfish thinking. Sometimes one might think, it is needed for them to survive or because they want to be able to show their children the animals in person at zoos. Now, the question is, if animals need a Bill of Rights? I strongly believe that they do need a Bill of Rights because there are animals on the day-to-day basis that are being mistreated and abused by humans that don’t care for them. We need the Bill of Rights because it will give a better voice to the animals being treated as if they were nothing in this world. I agree with what the source indicated “ Animals in the U.S. are considered just “property” by law, even though they are living, feeling beings”. If they were not considered “property” humans wouldn’t be harming these animals and would rather be caring or not giving them much attention if they aren’t an animal enthusiast.

The statement by Paul McCartney rings true, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian.” Animal rights is a concept which people hardly ever consider in a serious light. Being born as a human being, having a superior mental capacity and sense of times makes people think that they can rule this world and use other living beings as they see fit. This mentality leads to people say things like “animals are born to eaten” or how Aristotle claimed “all of the nature exist specifically for the sake of men” and “that animal are merely instruments for humankind.” (Pg. 495). This way of thinking often leads to overconsumption of animals, cruelty to animals and loss of species.

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.

Recently, Vancouver Park Board (VPB) passed a motion to ban the use of cetaceans for entertainment or research purposes. This motion has lead to a heated debate among animal right supporters and others who believe the ban was too harsh. Some supporters of the ban use Tom Regan’s view, a philosopher who adopts the abolitionist view of animal rights, to argue that the motion is justified. Others who favour against the ban believe that the Vancouver Aquarium is an organization that helps cetaceans by research and educating the audience. In this paper, I will examine closely and proof that the supporters of the ban who adopt Regan’s stance of not viewing animals as resources and treat them with respect is not suitable as I believe Vancouver Aquarium keeps cetaceans to lead them to a greater good.

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

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.

First I am going to start off by saying that there is a big problem in the world and it will make a lot of people think really hard about the next thing that they eat. Animal rights is a big thing to some people and nothing to some people but my writing is going to talk about both sides of this argument and tell my readers why animals should be treated just like humans. No one should have to go through being abused. Also going to talk about why I’m right about what I researched and how it really changed the way people view animal abuse. The topic of this is that people are not really doing anything about it. There are animals getting abused all around the world and people just seem like it doesn’t matter to them.

Animal Bill of Rights is a bill that is created based on the U.S Bill of Rights in order to protect the animals from getting harmed and used in experiments in an abusive way. I stand with Rifkin, Braithwaite, and Yong on how animals need a “Bill of Rights” due to the fact that we humans, specifically the scientists, have been treating animals in an inhumane way and considering them as an object to help achieve many goals. I wouldn’t think that such law would go against centuries of human culture because we have become more and more savage to other animals, and we would need to have some restrictions to prevent us from hurting them more.

Should animals be harmed to benefit mankind? This pressing question has been around for at least the past two centuries. During the early nineteenth century, animal experiments emerged as an important method of science and, in fact, marked the birth of experimental physiology and neuroscience as we currently know it. There were, however, guidelines that existed even back then which restricted the conditions of experimentation. These early rules protected the animals, in the sense that all procedures performed were done so with as little pain as possible and solely to investigate new truths. Adopting the animals? perspectives, they would probably not agree that these types of regulations were much

Animal rights is the philosophy or idea that all animals should be able to live a life free from human exploitation pain and suffering. According to Gale ” The idea of animal rights has roots in ancient times. In Greek philosophy, the animists believed that both animals and people had souls. The vitalists believed that humans were animals but at the top of the chain and could use animals for their benefit.” ( Animals Rights, par.2). In the early twentieth century in the United States, there was no law that regards to animal experimentation. In 1937 there was a pharmaceutical company that developed medicine called Elixir Sulfanilamide. When the medicine was released the company was unaware that the substance was harmful because the drug

For many years now the world has seen controversy over the rights of animals and if they think and feel like humans do. Many people see animals as mindless creatures or as food, while others think they have emotions and can feel pain. In other countries animal protection laws are in place that are strictly enforced and seem to work well with the system. In the United States however; some of the animal rights laws are considered to be useless and under-enforced (Animal Legal & Historical Center). More people today are beginning to see that animals should have rights and should be protected by laws and regulations (Animal Legal & Historical Center). Sadly there are many people residing in the United States who don’t take animal rights or protection laws seriously. These people abuse animals in many ways, including food industries that disobey the regulations set in place for the slaughter of animals used for consumption. Luckily for the animals there are people who fight for their rights and the enforcement of laws called animal rights activists.

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.

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