After an incident in 1933 involving the blinding of seventeen women from a mascara product, the U.S. congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which stated that products must be deemed safe for human use before being sold. This was the beginning of animal testing (Cruelty-Free Labeling). Most companies use animal testing, which ensures their product is safe for consumer use. Animal testing is a very controversial topic due to the fact that the knowledge and research gained through the tests is tremendous. On the other hand, there are millions of animals forced to endure these painful experiments. Those in favor of testing, due to the fact that it is reliable, argue that it is benefitting the health of society, and …show more content…
In the book Animal Rights and Human Morality, author Bernard E. Rollin explores this idea that humans feel they have been placed at the top of the food chain, and therefore can determine what creatures are or are not worthy of possessing a soul. He cleverly and sarcastically remarks on the ludicrous argument that animals are better to test on than humans due to the fact that they do not possess a soul, when it cannot be scientifically proven in any way that humans themselves have souls either. “Even if we suppose that animals do not have a soul while humans do, the key question is this: What does the possession of a soul have to do with being an object of moral concern?” (Rollin 45) Rollin continues to elaborate his frustration on this idea, stating that lacking a soul has nothing to do with ethical consideration towards animals (Rollin 45). Humans have no right to determine the existence of a soul from other creatures. The possession of a soul in animals, or lack thereof, cannot be the determining factor in whether it is morally permissible to cause them physical harm. What can be proven is that animals feel pain at the same level of humans. In the book In Defense of Animals The Second Wave, author Gaverick Matheny describes animals as being able to live long and happy lives just as humans do, based on the simple idea that humans and animals share the same scope of feeling.
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”.
Doesn’t it kill you to see a movie and see an animal get killed or just hurt in it? Good thing that’s all special effects. Back in the day, around 1966, movies didn’t always use special effects. Khartoum, a movie based on a holy war in the Sudan desert, directed by Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, used horses a great deal, but did not use the special effects in order to not hurt the animals. Many horses died in the making of this movie, as well as others, even including a major hit, Ben-Hur. Today, there are many activist groups that fight for and about the unfair treatment and protection for animals in everyday life. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of these groups. PETA was founded in
According to Gallup.com a third of Americans want animals to have the same rights as people. The Animal Bill of Right implies that animals have the right to be free from exploitation and cruelty, It also prohibits laboratory animals to be used for research. Animals will also have healthy diets and medical care. It will also provide them with an environment that satisfies their needs. I do not believe we need a Bill of Rights for animals. This would not only be extreme but it will affect human culture, medical research, and cost of food
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
That is all animals or living beings have an inherent value and equal rights apply to animals just as they would to any human (Pg. 501).
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.
Imagine being born, only to live a life of torture. You are brought to a lab, and cruelly tested on against your will. Toxins poured into your eyes, painful injections to your skin, then left to die when you’re no longer useful. Although many do not realize it, people use products tested on animals in their everyday lives. For girls, many of your favorite makeup brands, such as Estee Lauder, Makeup Forever, and Maybelline take part in animal testing. Products such as toothpaste, cologne, deodorant, laundry detergent, razors, and even band-aids aren’t tested innocently, either. As a makeup enthusiast, I am passionate about how the products I use daily are tested. Today I will help you understand what animal testing is and how it started, how it’s currently affecting animals around the world, and what organizations are doing to help make a difference in the future. To begin, I will explain the history of animal testing. An animal test is any scientific experiment or test in which a live animal is forced to undergo something that is likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress, or lasting harm.(https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/what-animal-testing) Animal experiments are not the same as taking your animal to the vet. Animals used in laboratories are harmed, not for their own good, and usually killed at the end of an experiment. Animal experiments include injecting or force feeding animals with potentially harmful substances, exposing animals to radiation,
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 barbaric practice of animal testing has been happening since the 19th century, and cosmetics testing on animals has been around since the mid 1900’s, when a woman was injured by using mascara (Murnaghan, "Animal Testing Timeline"). The woman received burns on her eyes, and ultimately was blinded by her makeup. This incidence caused the Food and Drug Administration to pass the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, which introduced testing cosmetics on animals to prevent injuries similar to this from happening (Murnaghan, "Animal Testing Timeline").
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.
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.
In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.
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