Nevertheless, despite their arguments being supported by validated and reliable evidence, both authors are biased towards their viewpoints. Initially, the authors argue that the domestication of animals must be prohibited as it violates the basic rights of animals and raises moral questions. One right that animals must obtain is the right not to be property. When animals are a property they are mistreated and not protected. Despite the laws that governments such as the US and UK established towards animals, they only seem to be effective when a conflict arises between the owner and the animal.
Would you standby watching if you saw anyone getting tortured? The disadvantage of animal testing is that they are unethical to use for our selfish purposes in products that might be a part of our everyday lives. Animal testing is not the solution to getting the results that we need in our experiments. With this in mind, should animal testing still be permitted for scientific research? I believe strongly that animal testing should not be permitted for research purposes because animals have senses and feeling just like humans, tests on animals show different results on humans due to the fact that they are biologically different, and it has many negative environmental consequences.
One would think animals like being in a zoo, ordinarily animals don’t. To an animal, a zoo feels like a prison they can’t escape out of. So, consequently if zoos were to release animals back into the wild, the animals would feel lost and not know what to do. Because they relied on the zoo for so long. Nevertheless, animals don’t feel like they are in their natural habitat.
In “Animal Rights versus Human Rights” Edwin Locke agrees that only humans have rights and that animal rights activists are anti-humanitarian. In this essay following points will be summarized; Locke’s arguments on the source of having rights, on cause for animals can’t have rights, on animal rightists are being antihumanitarian and on the reason for animals not having the moral spheres. I believe that Locke’s arguments are not strong enough to some extent. In an example, Locke’s views on animal rightists are not valid as well as his statements regarding the protection of men by having rights. Locke argues that only creatures that think and make choices have rights.
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.
Animal testing has always been a controversial subject. Some people see animals as companions, but others may see them as a way to advance studies and research. However one perceives animals, it is still inhumane to lock them in cruel conditions and force them into painful tests. Therefore, animals should not be used for testing because it is ineffective, unethical, and unnecessary. Animal testing is not only cruel and inhumane, but also ineffective.
If they have equal rights then why animals cannot? (Singer, 1989). However, as I have mentioned before, animals do not have cognitive abilities. They cannot learn our human languages and express their thoughts. They cannot fight for equality as women, and black people did because they are
Animal rights are essential primarily due to present practices of animal abuse, animal hunting, and animal experimentation. Furthermore, animal are in many ways just like humans. They have emotions and families; it is non-moral to harm the animals in ways that we know is not appropriate to do for humans. Even Allah command us to respect them. Do Animals Have Rights?
Negative impacts of transgenic animals and crops. (9 Biggest Pros and Cons of Transgenic Animals., 2015) & (G., 2015) 1. The use of transgenic animals is unethical: - People that oppose the idea of modifying genes for animals to create offspring that will help the society in some way say that doing this is a major part when going against moral ethics. Additionally, animal advocates are particularly the main people that are not in support for this habit. These people strongly believe that animals also carry rights like humans and it’s against the rights to change their DNA and genetically modify it for human use.
Most testing of animals is unnecessary and undertaken purely because of curiosity instead of the need to find cures to illnesses. Animal testing should be banned to protect the rights of animals since they cannot protest, speak up, or have any say in the situation. Animals suffer the abuse from harmful experiments to supposedly provide us with new cures which hardly occurs. We would not sacrifice one disabled child’s life in hope to save 1,000 children, so why sacrifice the life of an animal in hope to find a cure for an illness. Most advances in medical sciences have been through human testing and not through animal testing.