The Rights Of Dogs

For many years there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not animals should be given rights, even there own bill of rights. Some who are against the animal bill of rights argue that testing products on animals is important to the safety of humans. Others who want the new bill of rights claim that animals have feelings and that science is treating them inhumanely. Animal activists also add that animals are intelligent beings and are aware of how they are treated. Based on science proving animal activists correct on many of their points, this calls for a new bill of rights, in the United States, especially written for the protection and care of wild and domestic animals.

Drawing on animal rights claims, the questionable moral status of animals and the land ethic, this essay seeks to argue that zoos; a place in which wild animal’s are held in captivity, are inherently unethical, because they violate the ethical and moral standard in which animals have a claim to. Citing experts in the animal ethics field, this essay will be supported by firstly establishing that animals do in fact have “animal rights” and similarly, that they have a claim to a moral status relative to that of humans. Following this, this essay will show that the animal rights, which zoo animals are privy to, allows us to set an ethical standard on which humans have a duty to treat animals, especially when held in captivity. Analyzing this ethical standard with which me must treat zoo animals, we can deduce that zoos are in fact not ethical in nature and in practice.

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

Many things might have contributed to the colonist’s revolution against the British. The Boston Tea Party may have been the breaking point for Lord North and King George. What happened was the Sons of Liberty dressed as Mohawk indians and boarded the tea ships to toss the crates of tea into the sea. King George was not happy about the situation and passed a series of laws which the colonists referred to as “The Intolerable Acts.”

Once upon a time, the 13 colonies in North America wanted to break away from Britain and the evil king. The Patriots believed the British Parliament and king were unfair. The Patriots were Americans who didn’t want a king to rule them. The king of England was the mean and bad King George III. The Patriots called the king a tyrant because of taxation and violence.

Living in a world behind bars, having no sense of freedom, no thought of living in an environment where the boundaries are set by mountains, rivers, deserts and oceans. This is the life of an animal living in captivity. What gives us the right to take animals from their natural habitats and put them in an environment or home that doesn't even compare to what their home is. They don’t take us from our home and lock us up in cages in the jungle, so why should we do it to them. Imagine the problems that could come from taking these animals away from their natural habitat. Always having the thought in their head that they are never going back home. This would drive me insane and it probably drives them insane, too. Therefore, Animals should be set free in their natural habitats, because keeping them in zoos is causing their health to go decline.

Thesis statement: Dog breed-specific legislation should be lifted in Colorado cities because such a repeal would save money wasted on enforcement, increase public safety, and spare innocent dogs of improper care and even death.

Imagine someone has just moved to a different town and the townspeople decide that the person that just came to town is a threat, so the town creates rules that say the new person is not allowed to do certain things or go to certain places. This is how I suspect the following dog breeds feel nowadays: Pit Bull, German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Jack Russell Terrier, Spaniel, Collie, Saint Bernard, and Labrador Retriever. I feel strongly for our furry friends and when I found out about this legislation I wanted it shut down completely. Dog Breed Specific Legislation is a problem that not many people know that and I wanted to make it known to hopefully help stop

There should not be an amendment to the constitution granting animals rights. The reason I feel there should not be any amendment is because they provide us with food, give us resources that we use daily and we also get long lasting clothes from using their fur or flesh. But I do believe there should be laws on how to properly kill animals we consume or use for their fur, flesh or meat.

When you take your pet to the veterinarian’s office, you expect them to be in the safest of hands, and not only that, but you assume that in the moment that they are coming out, almost every time they will emerge being better versions of themselves; but what if behind closed doors the operation you were putting them under was not always what they made it out to be? What if the “safe procedure” you were putting your animal through did not make them better in the end? For most cats, a procedure most commonly described as “cat declawing”, also known as onychectomy, has risen to be a very controversial subject. While owners believe that they are signing their feline friends up for a painless visit to simply remove the animal 's claws, they are really signing them up for a painful amputation of their paws. Though some argue that in doing so they are keeping their pet safe from being sent away, most defend that by putting the pet through it, they are appointing them into the direction of much worse. In Katia Andreassi’s article “New Documentary Condemns Declawing of Cats; Who is Right?” from September 14, 2013 National Geographic, she uses the appeal of logic and the draw of credibility to get readers acquainted with the subject on whether or not it is right to declaw cats.

“Nearly as many, 68 percent, were concerned or very concerned about the well-being of animals used in ‘sports’ or contests as well as animals in laboratories (67 percent) (Kretzer, 1).” Many people question whether an animal is capable of thought and emotions. Others feel as though animals are the equivalent of humans and should be treated as such. Since the 1800’s, animal rights has been a topic that has several different sides including two extremes. If animals can react to their environment, emote, and are aware of things done to or with them, then they should have similar rights to humans.

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.

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.