Why Animals Can Not Fight For Animals

The starting point of this essay is to establish and lay out an animal rights claim. The point here is not to solely list which specific rights animals have, as that goes beyond the scope of this essay, but to discuss why animals do in fact have a claim to rights, and what this means for humans. The need to understand the intrinsic, or inherent value of animals allows us to see the base from which their claim to rights is derived. Inherent value refers to the idea that animals are valuable in themselves, not in what they provide us. Tom Regan, an animal ethicist, sets out the moral grounding from which we can

Animal vivisection is the study, experimentation and research of any animal. Animal rights activists are opposed to using animals for medical research and experimentation because humans do not have the right to use animals. With very few exceptions, we do not experiment on humans without their consent. Animals can’t give informed consent and the vast majority of experiments using animals are so invasive and damaging, that we would never even consider allowing humans to being subject to such experiments. Every year, animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories all over the world, most of the time without anesthetic or pain killers. If they aren’t killed by the testing, the animals are often not kindly but brutally killed. The dead animals are frequently left stacked in wheelbarrows in front of the animal cages.

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

Using animals for medical experimentation and education is a controversial subject that often leads to a heated debate. The issues are complex, but the suffering and waste involved in animal experimentation are painfully obvious. Vivisection, the act of cutting into a live animal, has led the nation down countless scientific dead ends, while detracting funds and attention from more applicable scientific research. The practice of animal experimentation at NYU continues, not because it has been proven to be an accurate and reliable means of research (which it has not) but rather, because of tradition and promotion from those with strong vested interests (i.e. Lynne Kiorpes). These values have

As a college student, I have seen things over the years that has concerned me on the world's approach to animal rights. Animals are still not treated fairly as humans are. In Vicki Hearn’s article, “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights”, she did not provide the audience with strong examples of ethos and logos but provided her audience with a numerous amount of pathos. People who own, work or care about animals and their opportunity to live as equal as humans do.

It is an ongoing issue that the animals that are being tested have been known to suffer. Vivisection is one of the worst forms of institutionalized animal abuse in our society, and it is a sanctioned and legal abuse. Within laboratory walls, what can be done to animals has no limit except those imposed by a committee selected by the facility itself. Imagine spending your entire life as a hospital patient or prisoner, and this will only begin to approximate the life of an animal in a laboratory. What happens to you can range from uncomfortable to agonizing to deadly—and you are helpless to defend yourself. Animals in labs live stressful, monotonous, and unnatural lives of daily confinement and deprivation. The only changes in their

The idea of animal rights has been around for centuries. Even decades ago, people were taking action for the welfare of animals. Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger share this idea all the way back in 1994 when they said that there is evidence that scientist are concerned with animal welfare by acknowledge that they use the guidelines in place to protect animals during research, in order to have their work published (Bekoff 219). Guidelines are the basis for the moral and ethical treatment of animals. Each person may have his or her own standard, but having a standard among the entire population ensures the welfare of the animals. Unfortunately, these standards are not at a level to where the animals are being protected. Many animals in captivity are treated in ways that would shock the average person. Orcas for example, are starved until they do the desired task (Cowperthwaite). This form of operant condition can lead to success, but often leads to resentment and hostility towards the trainers.

Regan, Tom. "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs." Forming a Critical Perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2010. 336-40. Print.

“Would we imprison our children in cages too small for them to move? Would we violate our sisters and steal their babies? Would we deliberately infect our friends with diseases and leave them untreated? Of course not so why would we do the same to animals? We must abandon the archaic and incorrect boundary of “human,” which we use to justify the ongoing massacre of billions of beings (PETA)”. According to the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, “There is an estimate of 100 million animals that are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in laboratory testing every year. “Most animals in laboratories never will experience fresh air or sunshine, only bars and concrete sound more like a prison well that’s just the beginning of what animal’s experience. There are few facilities that provide some outside caging, and they typically rotate the animals, giving them limited and infrequent amounts of time outdoors. Standard lab conditions, such as small, crowded cages, lack of enrichment, loud noises, and bright lights are all known to create stress in animals. When it comes to animals and their rights, there is a fine line between our needs and taking advantage of these animals just because we consider them to be inferior (NEAVS).”

“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.

Animals are a big part of many people’s lives. They provide companionship; they provide daily assistance to those that have deficits and are having difficulty functioning in their daily life; they provide security and help keep a watchful eye on things, plus so much more. And yet, with all that animals do for us, there are those that are treated with such little regard, care, and cruelty. They are unable to speak for themselves and therefore, they need a voice to speak for them.

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

Animal rights are an important topic to discuss and review. The trouble is the vast diversity of how people see humans and animals and how they are different and yet the same. Animals are in every aspect of our lives in how they are utilized to make our lives easier, to sustain us, or as a pet. Unfortunately, the line of animals and humans blurs as the widely known belief that we are a derivation of an animal and we should treat them as we would ourselves. This viewpoint, however, can be taken to an extreme as we see pets that can be pampered quite a bit. Relating back to the four authors in our text, there is considerable controversy on how animals should be treated. While some interesting positions arise with the various authors, to

Imagine your pet spending an entire life in solidarity confinement where he or she is deprived of food and water, and is electrocuted and force-fed chemicals from time to time. This is the life of animals in a laboratory. Live-animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is not only unethical, but also cruel and unnecessary. In the article “Vivisection is Right, but it is Nasty- and We must be Brave Enough to Admit This”, Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is a moral necessity that without the use of animals in the laboratory, humans would not have modern medicine like antibiotics, analgesic, and cancer drugs (1). For example, Hanlon believes by sewing kittens’ eyelids together can aid researchers to study the effects of amblyopia in