Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out cards praying for Peace on Earth. Although we are larger in size, we are not superior in status.
Animals have been around on the earth for as long as humans, if not longer. Animals play an important role in today's society whether or not we choose to admit it. Like a newborn baby learning to play with others we must learn to share the planet with animals. Over 7 Billion animals die at the hands of humans, in the US, every year.
Advocates for animal rights justify their research by presenting the obvious differences that exist between humans and animals.
These include size, status, strength, and ability. Sometimes, one who is against animal rights will take the attitude that "God gave them [animals] to us to use. All creatures are capable of feeling pain.
If a creature is capable of experiencing the pain then they too can wish for the pain to end. That right, along with many others, of animals is being denied to them even as we speak. Animals have a few basic rights which should be observed by all, no matter what company or corporation they belong to. These rights include freedom, the right to live peacefully in their own environment, the right to receive respect and most importantly, the right to LIFE.
Throughout history it has been noted by many, that humans have gained their existence from animals. In , Charles Darwin proposed that one species could evolve from another.
He stated that humans had evolved from other primates, such as apes and monkeys. Darwin related human feelings to those of animals. By stating that certain human characteristics could be traced back to animals, Darwin caused much controversy. He was now contradicting the traditional relationship between human and animal. In a way, almost putting them both on the same level. This theory questioned all that was believed to be true in society and made people think about their purpose.
With many of the experiments done today, animals are mistreated in every way shape and form. Usually, there is a lack of adequate food and water. Ventilation for the animals is minimal and many times cages are packed full with animals, leaving very little if any room to move around. On many occasions, the animal will die throughout the course of the experiment. Animals are in laboratories, today, because we are powerful enough to keep them there, not because they truly belong there.
Once we have an animal caged and restrained, we suddenly gain an even greater feeling of superiority over the animal. No matter what laws exist, experimentation will continue.
This is because the experimenter's imagination is endless. Our containing the animals can be related to one's enslavery of another human being.
One way in which many domesticated, yet homeless, animals are brought to laboratories is through Pound Seizure. At the moment, there are five states which allow and have Pound Seizure Laws. Many people feel that animal testing does not exist because they do not see it directly.
What they do not realize is that animal testing is being done by many of the major companies around today. One way to get around using these animal tested products is to look for products that will specifically state "No Animal Testing Done On This Product. It sets standards for the treatment of animals used in research, zoos, circuses, and pet stores. It covers housing, food, cleanliness, and medical care. According to Psychological Abstracts, every year approximately million animals are used for research purposes.
Presently there are two major animal rights groups around. PETA attempts to establish and defend the rights of all animals. Their primary focus is on the factory farms, laboratories and the fur trade, but will also concern themselves with hunting, fishing, zoos, the circus and other ways in which animals are used for entertainment purposes.
PETA is actively involved in exposing all the illegal practices used in animal experimentation. As many new studies continue to come out, more research is pointing to the conclusion that animal experiments are not always as accurate as we'd like to think they are. Although some similarities exist, quite a few of the positive results gotten from animal tests, will backfire when first used by humans.
A commonly used test by researchers is the LD The LD 50 Lethal Dose gets its name because in this experiment animals are taken, and then subjected to lethel doses of a potentially dangerous chemical or drug.
The dosage is the increased until 50 of the animals die. If the animal is "lucky" enough to survive, its life will be a total hell. They could end up being deformed for life. If not deformed than definitely traumatized. After being subjected to constant pain, punishment, stress and social and emotional deprivation, the animal might never act the same. The French philosopher Rene Descartes, and many others, taught that animals were no more than complicated biological robots.
This meant that animals were not the sort of thing that was entitled to have any rights - or indeed any moral consideration at all. This view comes originally from the Bible, but probably reflects a basic human attitude towards other species.
Christian theologians developed this idea - St Augustine taught that "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their [animals'] life and their death are subject to our use. St Thomas Aquinas taught that the universe was constructed as a hierarchy in which beings at a lower level were there to serve those above them. As human beings were above animals in this hierarchy they were entitled to use animals in any way they wanted.
We may find it difficult to formulate a human right of tormenting beasts in terms which would not equally imply an angelic right of tormenting men. This argument is no longer regarded as useful, because the idea of the soul is very controversial and unclear, even among religious people. Furthermore it is not possible to establish the existence of the soul human or animal in a valid experimental way. This also makes it difficult to argue, as some theologians have done, that animals should have rights because they do have souls.
Some argue that since animals don't behave in a moral way they don't deserve moral treatment from other beings. Animals, it's argued, usually behave selfishly, and look after their own interests, while human beings will often help other people, even if doing so is to their own disadvantage. Not all scientists agree: Jane Goodall, an expert on chimpanzees has reported that they sometimes show truly altruistic behaviour.
Another reason for thinking that animals don't behave morally is that even the most enthusiastic supporters of animal rights only argue that animals have rights against human beings, not against other animals. May they [animals] be hunted? To this the answer is no, not by humans; but presumably their rights are not infringed if they are hunted by animals other than human beings.
And here the real difficulties start. If all animals had a right to freedom to live their lives without molestation, then someone would have to protect them from one another. But this is absurd Why this might be relevant to the question of whether animals should have rights becomes clearer if you rephrase it in terms of duties or obligations instead of rights and ask - why should human beings have obligations towards animals, if animals don't have obligations to other animals or to human beings?
Animal and human rights boil down to one fundamental right: Animals with rights must be treated as ends in themselves; they should not be treated by others as means to achieve their ends. Particular species only get relevant and useful rights - so animals don't get all the rights that human beings get. Two methods can be used to determine the best course of action when there is no alternative to violating the rights of some individual or group:. This definition of harm benefits people over animals because human beings have far more desires that they want to satisfy than do non-human animals.
This resolves many of the traditional problems of humans versus animals in favour of humanity, because the human being under consideration would suffer far more harm than the non-human animal. The phrase 'marginal people' or 'marginal human beings' is unpleasant. We use it here only because if you read the literature of animal rights you will encounter it often, and it's important to know what it means.
We do not intend to denigrate the status or worth of any human being by using it here The problem with the line of thought in the section above that it takes rights away from many human beings as well as from non-human animals. This is because some human beings babies, senile people, people with some severe mental defects and people in a coma don't have the capacity for free moral judgement either, and by this argument they wouldn't have any rights.
Some philosophers are prepared to argue that in fact such 'marginal human beings' don't have rights, but most people find that conclusion repellent. But this is not an argument; it's a statement that human beings have rights and non-human animals don't, which is pure speciesism , and hardly persuasive.
It's also vulnerable to the probably unlikely arrival of a species of extra-terrestrial creatures who demonstrate the capacity for free moral judgement. This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets CSS enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets CSS if you are able to do so.
This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving. On this page Animal rights The case for animal rights The case against animal rights Animals aren't 'moral' Moral community Fundamental rights The problem of 'marginal people' Page options Print this page.
Animal rights There is much disagreement as to whether non-human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights.
Do Animals Have Rights? essaysThroughout time, animals have been used by humans in several capacities: faithful companions, hard labor, food, transportation, product testing and medical experimentation. We as humans view animals as existing only to serve us as a means to an end. Sure humans look a.
Do animals have rights essay presented below is an attempt to make it clear whether animals should be protected against violence and cruelty of people. The following animal rights essay provides arguments in favor and against the issue of animal rights .
How to Decide Whether Animals Have Rights and Which Rights, If Any, They Have MAIN ARGUMENT FOR ANIMAL’S RIGHT Despite numerous efforts, scientists have not been able to find any fundamental difference between humans and animals. Free Essay: 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.
Animal Rights Essay - Model Answer Some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way humans are and have similar rights, whereas others think that it is more important to use them as we desire for food and medical research. Do animals have rights essay - Get an A+ help even for the most urgent writings. Let professionals do their tasks: order the necessary task here and expect for the best score Essays & researches written by professional writers.