TOWARDS ANIMALS RIGHTS It is said that the beasts are not persons either natural or legal. Hence they possess no legal rights. But according to Salmond there are two cases in which beasts may be thought of possessing certain legal rights. In the first place, cruelty to animals is a criminal offence, and in the second place, a trust for the benefit of particular classes of animals, as opposed to one for individual animals, is valid and enforceable as a public and charitable trust; for example, a provision for the establishment and maintenance of a home for stray dog or broken-down horses. We have seen that the human beings owe a duty towards the animals, which ultimately is considered as a duty towards the society also. As every right has …show more content…
P.J. Fitzgerad says ‘it would of course be possible for a legal system to regard an animal as a person and endow it with rights and duties’. This in a way paved the way to accept that the animals do possess some inherent right and the early concept of the Roman Law doctrine that animals ferae naturae did not belong to any person and therefore, was a common property resource no longer holds good. In the growing societies and with the attitudinal changes people who favour and also those who are sincerely acting towards the animal welfare strongly advocate for some kind of rights of the animals. They found their support in the argument of such activists who favour that we work together in protecting all kinds of species on the planet in which lies the sustainable conservation of our …show more content…
It is worthwhile to mention here that the said Act was enacted with the primary object to consolidate the law relating to cattle trespass. The Court observed that “we are considering this matter from a little wider horizon. Cattle like human being possess life in them. Even an animal has a right to say that its liberty cannot be deprived except in accordance with law.” Citing the constitutional duty of every citizen to have compassion for living creatures which includes animals also, the court was of the opinion
It is basically survival of the fittest. Giving animal’s rights should be necessary only if they are being abused. For example, forcing dogs to fight other dogs till one is dead. If the animals are killed for our basic human needs than it should not be wrong. I agree with Bob Stevens in his letter to Rifkins when he mentions the fact that pigs would get toys even though there are human beings in the world who do not have such things.
The theory or idea that animal has rights comes from the rights that are traditionally moral and politically correct rights is a virtue from the type of culture that we are. Animal liberation comes from the utilitarian tradition that comes from ethics and mortality as coming about as a result of pleasure and/or pain, as someone’s overall well-being. When animals are caged harvest, this diminishes their well-being, which gives us the mortality that we address their decreased well-being and prescribes to us to liberate
Many Americans blindly believe that animals deserve the same rights as humans, but little do they know about the differences between the welfare of animals and the rights of animals. In the article A Change of Heart about Animals, Jeremy Rifkin cleverly uses certain negative words in order to convince the readers that animals need to be given same rights as humans, and if not more. Research has shown that non-human animals have the ability to “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love” (Rifkin 33). Animals may be able to feel emotions, however this does not necessarily mean that they are able to understand what having rights mean. While humans must accept their moral responsibility to properly care for animals,
People need to start spaying and neutering their pets pets. They need to stop because it is an overpopulation of domestic pets, and if they spay and neuter them, that would help a lot. Cats and dogs produce a good number of puppies and kittens. All of those is not going to get a home. This is why we need to spay and neuter our pets.
In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
Animal Rights Organizations have been battling the use of animals in our cultures through the court systems. “In 2013 the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed petitions in 3 trial courts in the state of New York demanding that common law writs of habeas corpus be issued on behalf of four captive chimpanzees.” (Wise par. ) The petitions asked that the courts recognize that chimpanzees are legal persons who possess the fundamental legal right to bodily liberty. All three petitions were denied, they moved the cases to the New York state appellate courts.
One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).
In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism
I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.
Michael Pollan brings to our attention the arguments that relate to the treatment of animals. He begins his essay with examples talking about how pigs are seen as nothing more than meat and how dogs get their own birthday and Christmas presents. Here he questions how certain animals receive different attitudes from us and makes us think about how each animal has a different fate. Pollan wants us to question ourselves and to look at animals from another perspective and see if they deserve more equality or if we need to have a different attitude towards them all together. These arguments are very effective in that they make us question of whether or not our attitude towards certain animals are different because of how they are used or in our eyes some are just more important than others.
How animals are treated can also affect daily human life. Animal rights are rights given to animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse and enumerates further rights for laboratory animals, farm animals, companion animals, and wildlife. Some animals should have a Bill of Rights. This law does go against centuries of human culture. This law would increase the cost of food.
A letter written by Lois Frazier consists of additional opinions, on Jeremy Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart about Animals.” Rifkin is an animal rights advocate, he conveys his belief that animals are quite similar to humans. Frazier supports Rifkin’s humane ideas and voices several novel opinions of disproportionate rights, such as confinement, affliction, and depletion. In the letter, she sheds light on concerning topics that Rifkin does not address. She first concentrates on an animal’s right to be free and live in a safe environment.
As previously mentioned, Taylor’s biocentrism argument positions non-human animals as teleological centres of life with an objective good of their own. In accordance with Taylor’s biocentric outlook on nature, non-human animals have legal rights. While he does not claim that these non-human animals have moral rights, he believes that these moral rights should be applied to nonhuman animals (Taylor, 218). If animals can be seen as teleological centers of life, then they ought to have legal rights. Since Taylor states that all living things have equal inherent worth, humans, acting as rational moral agents, are required to respect the moral equality of teleological centers of life and give the same respect to non-human animals that they do to human beings.
Animal cruelty is becoming an issue that is too big to ignore. It can be defined as neglect or the infliction of pain or suffering towards animals. One might notice that this is an issue that is becoming more common in zoos and aquariums. These places can be wonderful for the animals, but can also portray an awful life for the captive animals. No animal should have to go through the pain and stress that many are suffering through.
(“Human Society Organization,” 2014, para.5) Should there be such thing as animal rights? Yes they should because animals are just like humans. They have a nervous system and can be affected both physically and mentally. Animal Exploitation comes in many different ways. Some