The Importance 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.

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”.

In his essay Against the Moral Standing of Animals, Peter Carruthers argues that animals have no moral standing and therefore no rights, unlike all humans.

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.

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

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.

In her essay Speaking of Animal Rights, Warren (1987) argues for the weak animal rights position, which holds that non-human animals have weaker rights than human beings because non-human animals do not have the same moral status as us human beings (383-4). This is due to their lack of the ability to “reason well enough to function as autonomous moral agents” (385), which she believes is a requirement for being moral of human beings (384-5). In this essay, I will argue that Warren’s weak animal rights position misses the entire point about speaking of animals rights and we should instead recognize non-human animals as our moral equals and grant them full moral rights in virtue of their entitlement to dignified existence , rather than basing moral equality and rights upon rationality, as Warren indicates.

Cohen argues that not every single human meets the requirements for acting as a moral agent, but they all still receive rights (including the exemption from biomedical testing) because they are part of a collective group (Cohen 96). Animals do not receive rights because, as a whole, they lack the relevant prerequisites; he rests a large part of his argument on the premise that “…it is impossible for [animals], in principle, to give or withhold voluntary consent or to make a moral choice” (Cohen 96). The errant, questionable grounds behind this statement render an inherent double standard in Cohen’s reasoning. Animals have demonstrated altruistic tendencies of the kind Cohen describes. For instance, Frans de Waal illustrates the ability within monkeys and elephants to cooperate as well as demonstrate values of fairness and reciprocity through his experiments (“Moral Behavior in Animals” TED talk). As a whole, animals thus do not lack the relevant prerequisites that exempt them from being tested on for human

Every living creature 's common sense entitlement cynics trust that regardless of the possibility that Nim had some humanlike qualities and some essential correspondences abilities that does not legitimize obscuring the lines amongst people and different creatures. "We need to put into various classifications, ourselves - humankind that is - and whatever is left of the living scene," says the main British neurobiologist, Prof Sir Colin Blakemore. Prof Carl Cohen of the University of Michigan, Anne Arbor shares that view. Creatures, he contends, don 't know anything about profound quality: "Creatures don 't carry out violations, creatures are not assaulted for their ethical perspectives. Rights are an idea

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

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.

Next, I will analyze Carl Cohen’s premises. Cohen’s arguments about disagreeing animal’s right that contains of two premises to conclude that animals cannot have rights, the premises have some contradictions. The first premise which is any beings can have rights if they have free moral judgement, is logically strong. It is strong due to the fact that all beings have to respect each other’s rights if they understand what the judgement is. Like golden rule, beings treated each beings the same when the other beings understand. But, if there is something that make the beings to speak out, they can do so because other beings are treating it the same way. Beings can have rights because they understand that they have to fight for one if one does not

While Carl Cohen’s framework for determining that animals do not have rights is logical in some sense, his application is missing important considerations. He solely evaluates the consequences for humanity if animals did indeed have rights, and fails to consider what consequences animals may face if humans conclude that animals do not have any rights. Cohen states that although animals, from his view, may not have rights, humanity still has an obligation to treat them humanely. In an ideal world, humans would respect this obligation to animals. But as many of our accepted practices towards animals demonstrate, a typical person who does not recognize animal rights does not accept this obligation. People may treat their pets humanely, but humane

First of all, I must clarify that I do not think that our moral obligations to non-human animals do not arise from non-human animals’ rights. I am fully convinced by Cohen’s claim that animals do not have rights, because the concept of rights exists only within a human moral world. Many animal rights supporters would agree that the relationship between rights and obligations is absolutely reciprocal, as Cohen describes in “Do Animals Have Rights?” in which he refutes this claim. According to Cohen, in order to have rights, one has to be “a moral agent” who is “to be able to grasp the generality of moral restrictions on our will,” and this quality is present only in humans,

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