There has been an interest for animal protection and voice to their rights since more than 10,000 years ago in the Neolithic times. This appreciation and respect had led to more domestication and animal agriculture etc. Every animal on earth has the right to express the five freedoms as mentioned below: Freedom from hunger and thirst. Freedom from
same inherent value we have, as a result of equal rights we owned. Having those creatures, said to be the subjects-of–a-life. Anything with inherent values, should be treated with equal respects and not to harm the one who with those creatures of inherent values. Therefore, human and animals are both with inherent values as the subject-of-a-life, must respect each other and help when in danger. Anyway, the nonhuman animal rights are fundamentally including the right to life, liberty and bodily integrity.
Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia.
Singer had compared animal rights to the fight for civil rights and gender equality. The difference being that humans can express to other humans of their grievances, but animals can not be understood by humans to voice their pleas for help. This is why animals require human advocates to coney what
His ethics is focused on the rights of individual animals. Regan believes that animals are subjects of experience whose lives matter to them. This infers that animals hold intrinsic value themselves and has various rights. However, currently with animal testing, caging and hunting, animals are being deprived of their rights. Although it is a bit extreme comparison, Regan compares the situation of animals to slavery.
The wouldn’t let us use them to test new lotions or perfumes. Nor would they let themselves be used for our leather jacket and bags and shoes. Animals wouldn't let themselves be sacrificed just to please a human because what do we do for them nothing right. In conclusion I think that animals should have some rights .I believe animals should have Bill of Rights because they don’t get feeded right, they get mistreated, and they and they suffer of separation for there own kind.I Believe some animals should receive some bill of rights.And we can change that we can make them happy by respecting them loving them and treating them right. We have to watch out for them as if they were a friend of
-On the other hand, many people like activists and welfarists from animal rights organizations, believe killing an animal should be and for them is against the law, because it is still an animal with feelings that was also trying to defend itself. -Some religions, such as Buddhism also believe that animals are superior to men and should therefore not be damaged in any way. They say that no one has the right to take away a living beings life, because they too have the right to exist. -In conclusion, no human being shall feel superior to other living beings, but when it comes to helping other people or saving yourself when you’re in danger, the injuring or maybe killing of an animal is nothing. -This same process happens when a human being is hurting another human being.
Animals are animals which is where his reason lies and is the reason animal equality should not be invoked. Studies done by Maneesha Deckha a professor at the University of Victoria affirms, “Many of us who live with non-human animals would count our non-human companions as members of our families, even as our kin. Yet the law’s definition of family, however much it has shifted towards the inclusion of non-normative relationships, still excludes non-humans and even commodifies them as chattels. For this, and a multitude of other reasons, animals merit better legal recognition”. Which she then reasons why ethically animals should not be given equality due to it being absurd.
Looking at pets for example, society implements laws protecting these animals because becoming aware of a pet in pain would lead to human discomfort due to numerous facts such as the strong friendly bond people have with their pets. Though if we look at the case of eating meat, most of society does not extend their moral code to protect the animals farmed or hunted for food because they are protecting their interests such as the pleasure they enjoy from the taste of meat or the energy it gives their bodies. The interest of not having to pay more than required is also a strong contributing factor to the way animals are treated. Here human moral code is not extended to look after these animals. Because even though farming and hunting animals has extreme consequences to the environment and the animals suffering on farms, it has little direct discomfort to humans such as seeing a mans best friend in pain.
If the animals had those feelings, then they should have respect. People think that animals should be respected, not exploited, not exploited because of the selfishness of humans. Tom Regan said, “Animals are subjects of life just as human beings are, and a subject of a life has inherent value. They are. .