For the fifth time that day, Mrs. Jacobs walks past the Miller's window where she stares at their family pug. All of her effort to not open the door is confined in hatred, this animal that doesn't deserve to be cooped up all day, being taken advantage of. All animals should be loved, animal critics argue, but it is not necessary for animals to be given rights because of their lack of communication with humans. The argument of animal rights has exploded in the last decade, creating organizations like P.E.T.A. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and A.L.F. (Animal Liberation Front) both of which are trying to enforce the government to create laws for animal rights. Animal rights have been a topic of discussion as early as Ancient Rome, …show more content…
What will happen to all the advancements in medical research, and will animals be put in prison or brought to jury? The American College of Surgeons has announced that animal research for education and scientific studies will not be able to be replaced, because of the life changing medical advances that animals have accomplished for humans. Cancer and HIV medications have depended on animals to test the effectiveness of the drug and the safety. "In 2005, AIDS patient advocates campaigned against PETA, criticizing the group for standing in the way of research that requires the use of animals for toxicity testing." (Lee and Cushman 4). Animal critics believe that animals should not have rights because of the huge improvement they had made on medicines with animal testing. Animal testing is not supposed to harm animals its suppose to find ways to help fight diseases for humans like: Insulin injections for diabetes patients, chemotherapy for cancer patients, stem cell transplants, vaccines for smallpox, polio, and yellow fever (Rich). If animals were given rights, researches with animals would have to be discontinued because it would be against the law. Scientists say it would be devastating and would be a hold to scientific advancement in the medical field (Rich). If animals were given rights, we can't understand them and they can't comprehend morality. Animal rights supporters argue that everything in life should have the same equal value. Some with higher thinking, such as forming beliefs about the world and to respond emotionally and animals that can do this can be granted natural human rights. This has raised a question to the logical end, "Consider, for instance, the relative value of a highly functioning great ape, capable of complex communications and sophisticated tool use, and that of a human child with severe cognitive disabilities, who will never learn language
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”.
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.
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.
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 1877, the American Human Society was founded in order to improve the lives of human beings, but it expanded to include advocating for humane treatment of animals (Yount 42). Animal rights movement gained momentum during the 1960s, when a widespread mistreatment of animals in labs was uncovered (Yount 47). In response to wide public discontent, Congress passed the first animal welfare law – the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act in 1966 (Yount 42). The act itself did little to help the animals that were being mistreated in labs, but it did establish a frontier for the animal rights movement. The act had little practical applications, because it did not cover rats, mice, and birds, which
Issues concerning animal rights are often controversial. Various attempts at making human life more convenient interfere with the lives of animals, endangering them. Overtime these practices, such as deforestation, lab testing on animals, and poaching, can increase the risk of the animals involved becoming extinct. Several different organizations attempt to combat the risk posed to endangered animals by creating ad campaigns to raise awareness of the harsh effects losing such animals could cause. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, made the image above with the hope that people might either change their harmful ways or contribute to groups that attempt to save animals. By identifying the ways in which this image can be considered an argument
“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.
These methods have contributed to a technological revolution in biomedical research, thus, rendering the need for test animals outdated. We use technology for so many applications in our life, why can we not switch over in this instance if there is such a high demand for it? Unfortunately, like so many other issues we face today, we have yet to come up with one solid view when it comes to animal rights.
“Hormone-free”, “organic”, “grass-fed”, and “natural” are labels that animal and plant producers use to inform consumers of what they are eating. These claims are misleading and usually increase the prices of those products. By increasing the price and sticking a label that reads “natural” makes consumers think that this product is better for them. Animal Welfare Approved gives an example of an egg carton boasting the statement that its eggs are “natural.” This statement can legally come from an industrial farm where the hens do not forage the way a chicken does “naturally.” According to the USDA, farms have to get organic certifications and accreditations in order to sell, label, and represent their products as organic. It is difficult to
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.
backs and they were dragging their hind legs (Reed 38). While in the lab, the
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.