The Importance Of Animal Rights

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”.

Peter Singer and Tom Regan are two important philosophers when it comes to securing the protection of non-human animals through gaining moral considerability. Both philosophers have the same end goal, equality for animals, but each philosopher takes a different path to get there. In this essay I will discuss both Singer’s and Regan’s methods that they feel are the best in accomplishing moral considerability. I will first begin with Singer’s utilitarian approach and then move on to discuss Regan’s rights approach. Once I have fully described both arguments I will then discuss how the approaches are similar and different. I will then argue that Regan has the stronger approach in securing animal moral considerability through his more realistic

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs. We need to acknowledge a problem. After identifying the issue, we must recognize that there is a need for change in society. In addition, he also reiterates the importance of the populace changing the way they view animals. The way society views animals will create a snowball effect that will influence politicians to also believe in animal rights.

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.

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.

There will always be some humans who don’t have the usual characteristics we find in an average human, therefore it is unfair to hold non-humans to the same expectations. Singer explains that our consumption, killing, and bringing of suffering to animals, as a means to our end, is a clear example of speciesism. This treatment is unjustified. Basing moral importance on species membership is also arbitrary, Singer argues. He believes it is not rational to think members of your species deserve greater consideration than those in another group.

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

Mohandas Gandhi once expressed, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Gandhi touches upon the subject of animal rights and how humans must be judged by the way animals are treated. This brings up many questions about animal rights such as what are the moral obligations humans have, if we have them, towards animals. And if we have these moral obligations towards animals, what are the implications of these obligations for humans? Observing animals rights from the viewpoints of a utilitarian such as Peter Singer, an Animal Rights Philosophy Specialist Tom Regan, and English Philosopher Roger Scruton, allows us to be able to fully develop and discuss the complexities of animal rights.

Animal rights should be afforded on the basis of morality. As a society of moral and just people, it would be wrong to mistreat animals. The treatment of these animals must be protected by some form of rights. Different animals are consumed by humans in different countries. The animals which are socially acceptable for human consumption vary among

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

The idea that animals have rights seems to be heavily agreed on by a large majority of scholars whom have studied this topic. However, what comes into question is understanding the severity and range of these rights. How do we determine the level of animal rights? How do we understand animal rights in relation to human rights? This paper aims to address these questions by showing that animals have the basic rights to live a life without harm, but cannot have equal rights to humans because of our dependence on them and their inability to reason and communicate with humans.

The concept of animal rights is considered an ethical issue because there is widespread disagreement as to whether they should be respected or not. The Oxford Dictionary of Politics says the following about animal rights: “The claim that animals have rights reflects a belief that (at least some) animals are worthy of the protection and security afforded by a set of politically enforced rights.” (Humphrey, 2009) The belief for these rights can be looked at from a utilitarian perspective, on the basis that “a) animals can feel pleasure and suffer pain, (b) the world is a better place if animals do not suffer unnecessarily, and (c) such unnecessary suffering is best avoided through the

The organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) defines animal rights as meaning the following:

There are many viewpoints concerning this issue that need to be dealt with in order to fully grasp the mindset of those so deeply involved in the struggle to determine what, if any, rights that animals possess.

The relationship between humans and animals has greatly evolved within the past 12,000 years. With this being said, the treatment of animals has as well, leading to different approaches we as humans take when it comes to the use or treatment of animals. Sentientist approaches to ethics are divided into two different types: animal welfare and animal rights views. The “animal rights” approach refers to views that credit individual moral rights to animals. Animal rights advocates are radicals who seek to abolish certain practices that involve the use of animals. These advocates are “driven by emotional attachments to animals rather than reason and are poorly informed about the nature of