The Pros And Cons Of Animal Rights

In the article “PETA urges L.A. to ban all wild animals from circus performances”, Alexia Fernandez highlights the speed with which animal activists go in order to free wild animals from being used in circuses. According to the spokesman for the Ringling Bros, after L.A. “banned circuses from using bullhooks to manage elephants” in 2014, PETA activists demanded that circuses remove wild animals from their performances and Barnum & Bailey Circus begged to differ by arguing that animals in their facilities are taken good care of and are not mistreated (Fernandez, 2016). In conclusion, both sides of the arguments believe that neither is misinformed.

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.

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

Hunting is not a form of animal cruelty because its serves a purpose to the population of certain animals. Animal cruelty is when people force pain on animals which lead them to suffer a slow agonizing death. This is a large moral issue today that just keeps growing into a nationwide problem. For instance, morally humans believe it is okay to harm non-domesticated animals rather than domesticated animals such as our pets. Domesticated animals and non-domesticated animals still have behavioral instincts. A domesticated dog will attack if threatened and a non-domesticated wolf would do the same. Thinking of ourselves as the dominate species is untrue in the state that animals kill other animals for food, just as we as hunters do and anyone who eats animal products. Many will ask what the differences are between hunting, poaching, and true animal cruelty.

Animal testing is harsh and brutal treatment. These innocent animals are force fed, deprived of food and water, locked up for long periods of time, inflicted with burns, wounds and pain from the recovery process, and even killed. Cosmetic companies will often spray or apply products to the eyes of animals to make

“The Draize Eye Test is used to test shampoos, weed-killers, pesticides and household detergents. The substance under test is sprayed or instilled into one eye of a rabbit. Generally, no anesthesia is administered and the test often proceeds for 7 -14 days, during which the cornea, iris and conjunctiva are examined for signs of opacity, ulceration, hemorrhage, redness, swelling and discharge. The rabbit’s eye is then monitored over several days for signs of healing or deterioration. Typical reactions include tears, swelling, inflammation , bleeding and even blindness. Not only does this test cause immense suffering to the animals used, but it is also known to be unreliable and imprecise”(onegreenplanet). Animals are being tested on and being killed for humans humans don’t deserve all the animals in the world they are alive for a reason. And NO that reason is not for them to be tested on the reason they are alive is for them to live the best possible life they can, and same goes for

Gerhard Zbinden, a toxicologist described that “the testing of just one substance can involve using up to 800 animals.” The pain and suffering that the large amount of these animals go through is not worth the possible benefits to humans. When animals are used for product toxicity testing or laboratory research, they are forced to undergo painful and deadly experiments. The most common product safety tests are the Draize test and the LD50 test. Rats and mice are usually used for this experiment. Since both trials are the most painful and deadly of all, they are often avoided but still performed. During an LD50 test, tubes are attached to the esophagus of the stomach and force fed chemical products, causing the animals to then suffer with discomfort and pain throughout different parts of the body. The Draize test determines the consequences of getting a chemical into a human’s eyes. In order to determine the eye irritancy of a product, scientists place it into a rabbit’s eyes and look out for eye damage. Specifically, swelling, redness, bleeding, and blindness. After performing the Draize test, rabbits’ either often bleed or become blind. They experience these symptoms for up to 14 days until they are evaluated for further internal damage. When performing the Draize and LD50 test, animals are expected to fail. Though, some take days and even weeks to die. During their weeks of slowly dying, the animals’ experience vomiting, diarrhea, and internal bleeding. Because so many animals are forced to go through these intensely painful test runs, animals experimentation ought to end to prevent wate of animals

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.

Did you know that 56 billion animals are slaughtered each year? People believe that farmers are abusing and causing stress on the animals. Farmers use confined feeding operations to maximize the production. By having the confined feeding operations, it gives the animals no room to graze. When they can’t graze, it restricts the animal to move or to exercise (“On The Farm”). The animals are not given any pain relief during certain practices like castration or dehorning. Animal welfare is not needed in the farming aspect, because the animals are meant for food.

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

Right comes from the Latin word "directus " that means 'straight' or 'placed in a straight line' in terms to justice. So 'to have a right to something' means that something is yours by justice of equality as in human rights, children's rights, civil rights, among others.

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.