Do Animals Have Rights Essay

Animal Rights And Animal Testing And Abuse

Research Paper: What are animal rights according to animal testing and abuse?

For as long as people and animals have been around there has been question to what their rights are; the main ones being how they should be treated, and if they can feel pain like humans. People all around the world eat meat on the daily like it is no big deal but what they do not know is how a lot of the animals are treated while being raised. Chickens, cows, and pigs are a major part of this; people raise them on farms with only one purpose; to make money off their meat, milk, and young. Organizations around the world try to help reduce the neglect and abuse they receive. Some of these organizations are PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), CARE (Coexistence of Animal Rights on Earth), along with many local shelters and veterinary clinics. Although many people think that animal abuse isn't very common, it happens every day all around the world. Cats, dogs, mice, horses, cows, pigs, chickens, rabbits, and even fish along with many others are punished unequally. Animals do feel pain and it is proven that they feel it just as a human would. So the thing to ask is; what are animal rights when it comes to abuse, testing and neglect? It happens every day but still continues to be in the world, if they cannot defend themselves is it fair? Animals are continuously tested for the comfort of humanity: examples of some tests

Why Animals Have No Rights Essay

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

Cohen defines rights as "a claim that one party may exercise against another"(339). He explains that there are many different types of rights: some moral, some legal; some held by a single person, others held by groups; all differing in what the right entitles one to. Above all this, however, Cohen stresses that rights are a concept rooted in morality. They arise out of the necessity for self–governance among a community, providing standards of conduct that beget personal protection and safety. Therefore, the argument continues that the holders of rights must only be those who are capable of comprehending such concepts as morality and duty and right against wrong. After all, standards can only be held to subjects capable of understanding and achieving them. Because humans are the only

Get more content

Do Animals Have Rights?

Do Animals Have Rights?

Animals have rights, or at least they should. Animals are not for us to eat, experiments on, wear or abuse in any which way. It is cruel to treat animals like they are not living souls. Animals are not tools that we can use however we want. They too have hearts and brains like us humans. Therefore, animals have all the rights to live their own lives without suffering and free from exploitation (Why). Animal testing is performed for the making of human products. Even after hearing about the millions of cases involving animal abuse, most animal abusing cases don't even get reported (Animal). Over a hundred million animals are burned, skinned, beat, poisoned or abused in testing labs around the US. Dogs are the most abused and experimented on animals. The pit bull species is on the rise. In 2001 pit bulls made up thirteen percent of the dog abuse cases. In 2007 pit bulls became twenty five percent of the endangered dog species. Animals that are tortured for fur come from fur farms where they are kept in cramped cages and are killed around six months old. People place the animals in freezing temperatures so they would generate a thicker coat that can be used for the making of fur products. Even if the animals die while the process, their coats can still be used afterwards. Therefore, they show no mercy on how cold the temperature is in which the animals are placed in. In china, the number one fur producer, animals are skinned alive for their fur coats.

Get more content

Animal Cruelty : Animal Rights And Human Rights

Animals are a common member of many households and society as a whole. Being the dog lover that I am, I have experienced both personally and observed the love and compassion that many share for their animals. There are individuals that will go to the extreme to take care of their animals because they view their existence equally superior as ours. Unfortunately there are many who look to animals for personal benefits or simply don't consider them equally important in any manner. These different views regarding animals contribute to the controversy of whether animals genuinely have any rights. Rights should be granted to any living creature that has the ability to suffer. Amongst the many animal right issues existing in the world, one that I feel is most common is animal cruelty. Naturally when thinking of animal cruelty one might think of neglect or physical abuse, when in reality animal cruelty comes in many forms. Though animal cruelty is not singled towards one species or animal, dog fighting is a terrible act that tends to go unnoticed. These dog fights take place for numerous reasons whether it just be for entertainment purposes or profit. Resulting from these fights, there are many injured or killed animals. Similar to us, dogs have the ability to feel pain. We don't want anyone intentionally inflicting pain upon us so why is it fairs for animals to experience such treatment? Animals serve a purpose, whether that be companionship, protection etc. so the least we

Get more content

Animal Rights And Human Rights

Animal Rights "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. Some of us have animals as pets, for competitions, for our jobs, and some to survive. Much like tasking asked of humans in day to day life. Those of us who have pets, see them as a part of the family, making us believe they are no different than a child we gave birth to. When we bring home our new born children, we love them, nurture them, and teach them as they grow to be adults. What happens to most families when they bring home their sweet little puppies, kittens, or other baby animal of our choosing? I would imagine that the goal is to raise them to adapt to their new family. This is no different than that of a small child. Looking at a behavioral stand point and comparing household pets to human beings, the reactions are very similar. When children are physically and mentally abused on a regular basis, the smallest act may have a similar reaction as that of a

Why Do Animals Deserve To Have Bill Of Rights

As humans we have a "bill of rights" but do animals deserve to have bill of rights? Animal bill of rights are examples of rights given to citizens to make them free for whatever they want to do. Animal bill of rights are for domestic animals who should be treated humanely. Some animals need a bill of rights.

Such a law will go against human culture. Because a lot of humans of eat pigs,cows,goat, etc and very little are vegan. In some cultures they kill animals for their religion and to sacrifice them. If they make a law for animals to have bill of rights it would cause a crazy ripple effect.

It would increase the cost of food. Because they will have very little of animals to cook or maybe none at all. It would be rare to eat meat and be

Get more content

The Argument Of Animal Rights

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 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

Get more content

Why Do Animals Have Bill Of Rights

I feel that animals do not need a bill of rights. Do you think animals would know that they have a bill. I don't think they would know. If animals had a bill of rights we would probably no longer be able to eat meat. Some people love meat. We can live without meat. We might not need it to survive, but we do need meat to receive protein and nutrients in our body. Our digestive system is equipped to make full use of healthy fats, proteins and nutrients found in animal foods. Humans are omnivores, we function best eating both animals and plants.

Get more content

Most human beings are inherently speciesist; meaning that they believe one species is superior to another. (Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2009. 6. Print.) It can be argued that this is just an expansion of the hardship of human equality, and just as we were once desensitized to others race or gender, we are now doing the same to animals. In addition, we don't give much thought to what goes on beyond our own little bubble. We don't care how our food got there; we just want it. We don't care if our cleaning products or our makeup was tested on animals, as long as it works.

Animal rights activists claim that the ability to feel pain is the designation of moral worth; and that while humans have the...show more content... Both will feel the sting of the smack and react accordingly. Granted, the horse's skin is thicker, causing the horse to have less of a reaction; however, it can be almost guaranteed that the horse will react. Our instinct, however, would be to comfort the crying baby, as it is a member of our own species, thus drawing us to it.

As children, we were all taught the sounds the animals on a farm make. We would picture the stereotypical farm with a barn and silo, and then be among the heartbroken when we found out exactly what it was that was waiting for us at dinner. This form of speciesism is possibly the most common, because it is unknowingly dealt with everyday. The corporations involved in producing our food often abuse the animals that end up on our plates. This abuse can range from verbal and physical assault to slitting the animals' throats while they are still fully conscious. However, because of the lack of publicity on this issue; it often gets overlooked and pushed to the wayside.

Another back burner issue is that of animal testing. Every day, animals in labs are subjected to tests that are for our benefit. In truth, the difference in the genetic makeup of these animals and us, the people these results are trying to help, is so significant that the results can be nothing but inaccurate. To make these creatures endure cruel, often repetitive, and painful tests, only to have a slim

Get more content

Imagine being locked in a cage, having thousands of people each day watching, taunting, and provoking you. That image of what just came into your mind is exactly what captive animals feel like all the time, every day. People believe animals should have rights. They need the same type of attention and protection as we humans. "Two–thirds of Americans polled by the press agree withanimal rights to live freely." (Tripp, P, 2003, pg 18) For example, the original idea of a zoo was to inform people, common citizens with knowledge of the rare creatures that we would not normally see every day. Somewhere along the way, that was changed. Animals are the same as humans, they have rights, there are multiple signs of neglect, and there are ways you can report animal abuse. Many people think animal abuse is not common, but it's actually more common than you think someone could walk past a house and hear an animal whining and that's one of signs for animal neglect. Animal neglect is caused by humans, not paying attention, feeding, keeping their animals outside or torturing the animal. Animal abuse and neglect can be reduced by the people knowing the causes and reasons of abusing animals.

Animals are the same as humans

"Over time, humans have realized they could feed, house and care for animals contently close to where they live and kill them when they are ready to other than when they could be caught" (Tripp, P, 2003, pg. 10 ). Humans now days are not thinking animals could feel pain or Get

Do Animals Have Rights

Animals are used to test the products that we use in our everyday life. Is it ethical or right to test our products on animals? If animal testing were not used, how would the safety of the products we use be insured? If animals were not used in medical testing, how would researchers come up with new medicines and vaccines? Different people have different opinions about this issue. Arguments abound for both sides.

In order to have an organized argument, there must first be an agreed upon standard by which the opposing sides of the arguments are judged. For the argument about the use of animals for laboratory testing, that standard will be the Word of God.

"And God said, 'Let the land produce living...show more content...

The Bible is clear in its teaching that rulers are supposed to be good stewards of their resources and subjects. This means that when a person is set as a ruler over someone or something else, their duty is to look out for those that they rule. The use of the Bible as a standard shows that the laboratory testing of animals is acceptable when used to save or prolong human life.

The organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) defines animal rights as meaning the following:

"...that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration – consideration of what is in their own best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally–challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful or even if everyone dislikes him or her). It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use –for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation." PETA ONLINE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. PETA separates animal rights from another term "animal welfare". Animal welfare is stated as follows by PETA, "Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow these interests to be traded away as long as there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice." PETA ONLINE

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. PETA believes that animals should have a certain set of rights. However, those rights

Arguments Against Animal Rights

Animal Rights Many question on whether animals should have legal rights or not. To say that animals should have rights is both ethical and unethical. The animal civil rights movement started in 1975. Civil disobedience was used as a tactic to gain public attention for their cause. It was argued that since non–human animals cannot enter a social contract, they cannot possess any legal rights. To say that people oppose the idea of animals being as free–willed as humans does not mean that they are advocates for animal abuse; but it was declared immoral to give animals irrelevant and useless rights that they would not understand. Those for animal rights certainly agree that the illegal trafficking of animals is a good reason to fight for them. By them, i refer to rights, the same rights we as humans have to keep us from being tortured and harmed. According to the database by Molly McGinnis, "Thai officials in June discovered the bodies of 40 frozen tiger cubs inside a freezer at a Buddhist monastery west of Bangkok." For hundreds of years animals have been killed and tortured by poachers and hunters, and though the government cannot impose hunting restrictions in other...show more content...

To give animals their rights would be saying that as human beings, we may not experiment on animals, one cannot breed and kill animals for food or clothes or medicine. One cannot use animals for hard labour, hunt, and cannot display the animal at a zoo or use them for any source of entertainment. In the article "introduction to animal rights," by Joseph Lubinski, it states,"To the law, animals are property: they are goods to be bought and sold, acquired and maintained." Human beings have grown accustomed to emotionally attaching themselves to animals that once were solely used for the purpose of hard labour. Advocates against animal rights do not agree that animals should be treated with the same privileges a human being

Do Animals Have Rights

Animals are used to test the products that we use in our everyday life. Is it ethical or right to test our products on animals? If animal testing were not used, how would the safety of the products we use be insured? If animals were not used in medical testing, how would researchers come up with new medicines and vaccines? Different people have different opinions about this issue. Arguments abound for both sides.

In order to have an organized argument, there must first be an agreed upon standard by which the opposing sides of the arguments are judged. For the argument about the use of animals for laboratory testing, that standard will be the Word of God.

"And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures...show more content...

The use of the Bible as a standard shows that the laboratory testing of animals is acceptable when used to save or prolong human life.

The organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) definesanimal rights as meaning the following:

"...that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration – consideration of what is in their own best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally–challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful or even if everyone dislikes him or her). It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use –for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation." PETA ONLINE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS.

PETA separates animal rights from another term "animal welfare". Animal welfare is stated as follows by PETA, "Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow these interests to be traded away as long as there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice." PETA ONLINE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS.

PETA believes that animals should have a certain set of rights. However, those rights are not immediately evident. PETA acknowledges that the interests of animals are different than those of humans. In other words, a dog would probably not be interested in having the right to vote, but a

dog would definitely be interested in not having pain inflicted on him or her

Get more content

Do animals have the right to a certain quality of life? How would your views change if our cooks got treated the same way cattle and poultry do? How would you feel about them being beaten and brought to their knees just to be detained to know how to cook todays specials? You might think that the food industry has no issues and no faults behind their tasty food, but when you open up the meat curtain, there is a different kind of world out there that is cruel and inhumane. In Robert Kenner's 2008 film, Food, Inc., He shows the conditions that cows, chickens, and pigs have to live in. The dark and closeted homes in which the animals are closely compacted together and eating, sleeping, and walking in their own manure. As a person who would consider themselves ananimal rights activist, most people would agree that the food industry treats their animals like products instead of living things. Let's take chicken farming as an example. Chickens are injected with growth hormones to make their breasts bigger for human consumption. The film showed chickens that were abnormally large. These modified chickens can only walk a few steps before having to sit back down because they can't carry their own weight for too long. Some farmers will recycle the dead carcasses of the animals into the feed for herbivores on the farm. So plant eating animals will be eating the meat of a dead carcass. Animals could get sick or contract a disease from the dead animals. This infection would soon get

Why Do Animals Have A Bill Of Rights Necessary?

Millions of animals today are either being abused, neglected, or slaughtered for the happiness of society. Each and every day, animals go from being loved, to being more loved. The type of love that is "this beef is delicious" or "wow, this bacon is crispy." Honestly, animals do acquire a Bill of Rights. Every person in this society is established under a bill that preserves their rights. Animals, in a matter of fact, have nothing that can preserve them. A Bill of Rights for animals will preserve them from being slaughtered, abused, etc. If humans aren't slaughtered and abused the way animals are, then why does it give every right for an animal to be managed in that way? If humans can consume animals for protein, why don't animals consume humans...show more content...

It is not a priority to take action and kill animals. It is chosen for no apparent reason. There are plenty of foods out there that taste wonderful.

"With all the delicious pastas, fruits, vegetables and grains that are cheaply available everywhere, there is no reason to kill animals to survive" (Johnson 1). Hunters choose to hunt, it is not something that encourages them to do it. It's by choice and these choices will be covered completely if a Bill of Rights was passed for animals. There is also a further thing people can do in order to stop hunting in their areas. To combat hunting in your area, post "no hunting" signs on your land, join or form an anti–hunting organization, protest organized hunts, and spread deer repellent or human hair (from barber shops) near hunting areas" (Johnson 1). Posting these signs will let hunters know not to take their unnecessary sport on in that particular area. People want to make sure animals are safe and not getting hunt down for no reason. It's sad thinking that the deer, for example, that was shot from a hunter was possibly on his/her way to get resources for their newborn. Now their newborn is left to survive on its own. This is completely not right. People do not know the background of the animal they are shooting, so why do it? It's unnecessary to eat animals. There is an event in China, pretty sure it's a cultural event, but they kill innocent dogs and eat them.

Get more content

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.

A well known scientist namedNeal D. Barnard...show more content...

The stress of handling, confinement and isolation alters the animal's mental stability and introduces yet another experimental variable that makes any results from testing even less valuable to human helping. In many cases, drugs and other substances are given to the test animals but studies have shown considerable differences in the effects of these drugs on different species.

David Salsburg of Pfizer Central Research has noted that of 19 chemicals known to cause cancer in humans when ingested, only seven caused cancer in mice and rats using the standards set by the National Cancer Institute. This justifies that many substances that appeared safe in animal studies and received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in humans later proved dangerous to people. The drug milrinone, which raises cardiac output, increased survival of rats with artificially induced heart failure; humans with severe chronic heart failure taking this drug had a 30 percent increase in fatalities. Also, the antiviral drug fialuridine seemed safe in animal trials yet caused liver failure in seven of 15 humans taking the drug (five of these patients died as a result of the medication, and the other two received liver transplants). Scientists and the populous that do not agree with Get

Animals Rights : Animal Rights

Harley Sargent

Ms. Clements

English 1301 12:00 9/20/17

Animal rights activists believe in giving the life of an animal the same importance as a human's life. Animal welfare accepts that animals have interests but allow those interests to be traded away as long as the people benefit from the sacrifice. In contrast, animal rights theories say that animals, like humans, cannot be sacrificed or traded away to benefit individuals and their needs. Animals should not have the same rights as humans because they were not put on this earth to serve as equals they were put here for us to benefit from. Animal activist want to state their opinion on how farm animals are mistreated but do not witness this abuse first hand, or they just hear it through the grapevine and believe what they hear. Most of these people do not have pets unless they are house pets such as dogs, cats, and hamsters. I believe these animal activist have no room to talk about our ranching or farming communities in a bad way because nine times out of ten, animals on a ranch and farm get cared for better than most people expect. The 4h program is a program for youth to get involved with a project such as a goat, sheep, cow or rabbit and learn how to properly care for it and exhibit that animal to its fullest potential. For example, the livestock that is being prepared to show get a bath at least twice a day if not more, and most are in a climate controlled area in the summer to stay cool and

Animal Rights

Get more content

Do Animals Have Rights? Should animals be harmed to benefit mankind? This pressing question has been around for at least the past two centuries. During the early nineteenth century, animal experiments emerged as an important method of science and, in fact, marked the birth of experimental physiology and neuroscience as we currently know it. There were, however, guidelines that existed even back then which restricted the conditions of experimentation. These early rules protected the animals, in the sense that all procedures performed were done so with as little pain as possible and solely to investigate new truths. Adopting the animals' perspectives, they would probably not agree that these types of regulations were much...show more content...

There are many viewpoints concerning this issue that need to be dealt with in order to fully grasp the mindset of those so deeply involved in the struggle to determine what, if any, rights that animals possess. Tom Regan, a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University and one of the leading proponents of this theory, claims that animals have "rights" В– the right to be treated in a certain way. Regan claims that animals have preferences, goals, and most importantly, mental states that enter into the explanation of their behavior. In his words, animals are "subjects of a life" just like humans and each subject of life contains "inherent value". What Regan means by this is that by performing experiments on animals, you are reducing them to mere tools and violating their basic rights. He justifies his theory by using an example containing the retarded and insane. He says that if these types of persons are allowed moral rights, despite their inability to think rationally, then all mammals should have moral rights. Also, he states that discriminating on the basis of species is really fundamentally just the same moral mistake as discrimination on the basis of race or sex. Discriminating on these terms is morally irrelevant and fails to accord equal consideration, states Regan. Another theory that is against cruelty to animals in such

Get more content

Animal Rights : Should Animals Have Rights?

If we as individuals are able to have rights, shouldn't animals be able to have rights as well? It's not right people are able to own animals and legally starve them, experiment and kill them because a researcher wants to run a test and if they did what they're doing to a human then it might be considered illegal and the people are able to speak and sue them. Just because humans and chimpanzees are scientifically similar in genetics, that doesn't mean people are the same as them. Animals – specifically Mice are some of the most common animals to be used for experimentation because of how cheap they are and it's easy for researchers to breed them. Although the success of technology andscience is generally advancing, that still doesn't mean we should fully rely on animal experimentation to find out what can help us and what can't. Although researchers mean well and want to help as many people out, animalsexperiementation is not the way to go as animals have to suffer in order to help us and the results haven't always shown to be the most progressive when it comes to solving our health issues.

During my time of research online my first sources asserts that drug testing is considered inefficient according from Bailey from the Wall Street Journal who has stated: "Testing drugs on animals is notoriously ineffective. Not only do laboratory animals suffer from confinement and research procedures, but because they present different biologies and physiologies, different species

Get

Animals have their own rights as do to humans and we should respect that and give them the same respect we give each other. Animals deserve to be given those same basic rights as humans. All humans are considered equal and ethical principles and legal statutes should protect the rights of animals to live according to their own nature and remain free from exploitation. This paper is going to argue that animals deserve to have the same rights as humans and therefore, we don't have the right to kill or harm them in any way. The premises are the following: animals are living things thus they are valuable sentient beings, animals have feeling just like humans, and animals feel pain therefore animal suffering is wrong. 2 sources I will be using...show more content...

Singer wants to show that everyone's interest or good counts for one (Singer 8). Singer deals with the question of suffering as his main point since his goal is to show that rights are based on the capacity for suffering. He supports with some fundamental facts that these animals have nervous systems just like ours, which "respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in circumstances in which we would feel pain" (11). Singer's arguments can be supported byJeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, who incorporated the essential basis of moral equality into his system of ethics by mean of the formula: "Each to count for one and none for more than one." In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being (Singer 5). Singer argues that we do not have good legal reasons, scientific or philosophical, for denying that animals feel pain. Therefore, he deems that "if we do not doubt that other humans feel pain we should not doubt that other animals do so too" (15). He proves that animals can undergo pain and that there can be "no moral justification for regarding the pain (or pleasure) that animals feel as less importance than the same amount of pain felt by humans" (15). This portrays the rights and equality the animals may possess comparison to Get