The Cruelty And Benefits Of Animal Rights

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

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.

Millions of animals are used for product testing and most of them do not come out alive. For proof, neavs.org says that every year in the United States over 25 million animals are used in biomedical experimentation, product and cosmetic testing, and science education. That tells us that millions of animals are used in biomedical experimentation, cosmetic testing, and science education. The animals are treated harshly and there is a 99% chance that they will die. Similarly, animalaid.org states that

Animals are found throughout lives of humans. As companions, entertainment, test subjects and food, animals serve vital roles throughout our lives.The Animal Bill of Rights, through the Animal Legal Defense Fund, attempts to defend the basic legal rights of all animals. However, to weigh the need for such an act, one must compare the suffering of animals to the benefits such suffering gives to humankind. It’s much more important to highlight the crucial medical advances that lab animals have provided over the injustices they may suffer, but this suffering can not and should not be ignored. It is with measure that we do not enact a bill of rights for animals, however we bring new awareness of animal research and the ethical treatment of all

Introduction, animals that are being tested safety of their products that’s been a subject of an intense debate for over 10 years. While, a lot of people that alleged animals, the remained animals are being subjugated by the research cosmetics companies all over the country/all over the world. Even though, the scientists frequently profit from animal research, I don’t think all the suffering, the pain, and the animals dying are worth just trying find out the human benefits from the products.

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.

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 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.

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.

The creation of a new product, should not cause animals to suffer and die. Because humans want a new lip color or a new type of eyeliner, does not mean that numerous animals should be immensely tortured and at times to death. Many argue that in order to ensure the safety of a product, animal testing is necessary. However, in today’s scientific world, this is not true. Many people argue that animal testing is cheaper, but according to Consumers ' Research Magazine writer Beatrice Hunter, it costs 500,000 dollars per product to test something using animals, as opposed to alternatives, which cost on average 50 dollars per product.

Animal testing causes unimaginable suffering. Many animals used in experiments are force feeding and go through a long physical pain like the infliction of burn and other wounds to study the study the healing process. The cosmetics companies use the Draize eye test, that help evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products. Rabbits are more commonly use for this test and their eyelids are held open by clips for many days so they do not blink away the product being

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.