The Implications of Different Views on Animal Rights Essay

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

To begin with, 100 million animals are experimented on and tortured every year according to PETA, an animal organization. In today 's society, people are taught from a young age that some animals are ranked higher than other. To illustrate, the typical house mouse would be looked as being disgusting and gross while a dog would be seen as adorable and pleasant. animals are seen as if they do not have rights, today 's society

Over a 100 million animals, mice/rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea, pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds are killed. They’re killed in biology lessons, medical training, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. Before some animals deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, immobilized on restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls and etc. They are also confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized.

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

Murder and abuse cases never fail to startle society. Moral codes are flouted with unmatched rigorousness by these indubitable egregious crimes. Sufferers in these cases are often people. Nonetheless, these callous obscenities should not be seen as less important when animals are the victims. Animals undergo horrendous abuse due to barbaric individuals, greed, and unnecessary lab testing.

Today, the discussions about the protection of the animal’s rights have received the attention of many people, many countries in the world. A lot of actions have been made by animal right activists to influence the world. Alex Epstein and Yaron Book, both authors of the “The Evil of Animal ‘Right’,” argue animal right activists use too much violence on their action, which is considered going against the law. Then, the authors give a lot of evidence to prove testing animals are extinct, but using animals for testing gives us new vaccines which make our lives better. Without animals for testing, how can scientists find out the vaccine for diseases? Animal right groups are making many effects to Huntingdon Life Sciences.

An estimated 25 million or more animals are used yearly in the U.S. These animals are commonly used in biomedical research as “models” for human disease, they are also used in basic biomedical research which is research for general understanding. Not only are animals used in biomedical research but, behavioral research as well, such as psychology and addiction studies, military, space, and agricultural research, product development and drug testing, as well as science education. Animals shouldn’t be used for such testing, these tests are unethical, inhumane and completely unnecessary. Thousands of animals suffer and die every day in laboratories around the world. In most states, abuse or cruelty towards animals is illegal. A person can face up to 7 years in prison and a fine of maximum $235,600. If it is illegal for cruelty to be conducted on animals why does it make it okay in the name of science?

“Would we imprison our children in cages too small for them to move? Would we violate our sisters and steal their babies? Would we deliberately infect our friends with diseases and leave them untreated? Of course not so why would we do the same to animals? We must abandon the archaic and incorrect boundary of “human,” which we use to justify the ongoing massacre of billions of beings (PETA)”. According to the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, “There is an estimate of 100 million animals that are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in laboratory testing every year. “Most animals in laboratories never will experience fresh air or sunshine, only bars and concrete sound more like a prison well that’s just the beginning of what animal’s experience. There are few facilities that provide some outside caging, and they typically rotate the animals, giving them limited and infrequent amounts of time outdoors. Standard lab conditions, such as small, crowded cages, lack of enrichment, loud noises, and bright lights are all known to create stress in animals. When it comes to animals and their rights, there is a fine line between our needs and taking advantage of these animals just because we consider them to be inferior (NEAVS).”

People shouldn’t have any rights to abuse or neglect animals and get away with it easily. Animal abuse is a big conflict because some people get away with these acts in which they don’t get punished or little punishment while the animals don’t get to live happy lives and suffer. Hiding in pain that these occurrences that happened to them with procide over and over again. However, in the article “Frequently Asked Questions About Animal Cruelty” by The Humane Society of the United States, it states that “ Animal cruelty, like any other form of violence, is often committed by a person who feels powerless, unnoticed, or under the control of others. The motive may be to shock, threaten, intimidate, or offend others or to demonstrate rejection of society's rules. Some who are cruel to animals copy acts they have seen or that have been done to them. Others see harming an animal as a safe way to get revenge against—or threaten—someone who cares about that animal.” (The Humane Society of the United States, 2017) This states that there are reasons why people do what they do to the animals but it still doesn’t give them the right to harm or mistreat them. The article also states that

First, according to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and others wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck breaking decapitation, or other means.” In the first place, the people in the laboratories are forcing the animals to suffer, without knowing how the animals feel. Animals have feeling too, they just can’t show it to humanity, because they are unable to communicate with human and people. Secondly, The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,365 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,562 guinea pigs, and 48,014 hamsters. Therefore, we cannot let the laboratories keep using animals to test their items and products, or else the animals will be in big danger. The amount of animals that suffered in pain in 2010 is unbelievable, we can’t let this keep going on or we’ll just lose our precious, fluffy bunnies and other poor animals to. Overall, after reading what is happening to the animals, this is cruel and not fair to the animals that are

Just in the United States, “there are about 26 million different species, from dogs to birds, being used every year for medical and science related testing” (“Animals in Science / Research”). Throughout the process of testing, “monkeys are addicted to drugs, cats are deafened and have holes drilled into their skulls, sheep and pigs have their skin burned off, and rats have their spinal cords crushed” (“Animals in Medical Experiments”). As a result, animals face cruel conditions and have no way of fighting back. Although medical testings on animals may cure the deadliest diseases such as cancer and tuberculosis, the abuse and mistreatment these animals face while testing medicines should be deemed inhumane, and such practices should be banned in the United States.

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.

backs and they were dragging their hind legs (Reed 38). While in the lab, the

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