It is not right to euthanize dogs because it is unfair due to equal rights, it is cruel to kill animals, and there are possibly better ways to treat dogs who bite people. Killing dogs for biting is considered an unfair punishment, and they should have the same rights as humans.
You could save an animal from drowning, but you could save a person from drowning too; the choice is difficult. You could protest for animals to have rights and not be tortured at slaughterhouses and still eat them from factories that do things like kill them in an abusive way. Animal rights, animals should have some rights with some limitations. I have issues involving this topic about animal rights because i have mixed emotions about how we can experiment and torture animals but still have them as pets. In articles by Jeff McMahan, “Eat Animals The Nice Way”, and by Maureen Nandi Mitra, “Animals Are Persons, too”, they talk from two different positions where we should eat animals and another where we shouldn’t experiment on them and let them be.
In the article, Timothy Hsiao begins with an outline of one school of thought of vegetarians that it is morally wrong to eat meat because of the pain caused in the killing of animals and that eating meat is unessential to survival. Hsiao then establishes his argument that even though eating meat may not be necessary, our “nutritional interests” are a valid enough reason to kill animals. The following section argues that sentience is only a relevant consideration in association with sufficient moral standing and that because animals are not part of the human “moral community,” they have no moral standing and therefore, their pain is a “non-moral” welfare interest, trumped by the “moral” welfare interests of humans (Hsiao).
Alfred Russell Wallace’s “Are Humans One Race or Many” powerfully asserts that human races differ in superiority due to the unique environments each group resides in. Through real-world examples, Wallace states that an environment’s “physical peculiarities” are the underlying factors behind both the separation of humans from animals and the superiority of certain races over others (Wallace 218). A critical element of this piece is Wallace’s elaboration on why humans are immune to the effects of natural selection. The example he uses is subtle but powerful.
Moral Status of Nonhuman Animals Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher that believes we should accept the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle states that all beings, both human and nonhuman animals should have their interests considered with the same weighting. Singer believes this principle must be adopted to avoid becoming speciesist: defined as the preference of one species over another species. He compares this practice to racism and sexism but instead of discriminating by race or sex, we discriminate by species. Through careful consideration of Singer’s argument and objections, we are able to reject his claim that a nonhuman animal has the same interests as a human.
Examples other than the inequality of trans and homosexual individuals and different religions and their followers exist in Modern America, but those example compare more recent issues with equality and one that has stood the test of time, The goal everyone should strive for is equality like Martin Luther King
In the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, the authors argue that processed meat can greatly affect the many things in our everyday life. Sunaura and Alexander’s argument is significantly unreliable because of the certain professions both authors yield. As stated in the article “Sunaura is an artist, writer, and activist in Oakland.” “Alexander’s profession is studying philosophy, and ethics in Athens, Georgia.” This shows that neither of them are qualified to argue in the subject of conscientious meat eaters.
He states that if we are to take seriously the principle of equality, which allows us to say that all humans, despite the color of the skin or what abilities they possess, should be treated as equals, then we must commit and apply this same principle to our relation with the non-human animals. For example, if we believe discrimination against a disabled person for either their lack of mental capacity or their inability to communicate is wrong, then it is equally wrong to discriminate against animals who lack these abilities. Similarly, just as we should not disregard the interests of people who are not members of our race, we should not disregarded the interests of animals who are not members of our species. Like Jeremy Bentham, the father of modern utilitarianism, Singer believes people often draw arbitrary lines when determining whose interests should be taken into consideration. Historically speaking, sometimes the line is drawn based on gender, other times it is based race or abilities.
Drew Mosier Argumentative Paper Sometimes in order to keep yourself safe, you have to go against laws or rules that have been set by the government and the actions you choose are in self defense. Montag is justified for killing Beatty because he needed to protect his friend that was in great danger. He was also making a public statement by standing up for what he believed needed to change in society. Additionally, He was defending his own life, not knowing what Beatty would do if he would’ve had the chance.
The Jonathan Foer criticizes the contemporary conventional factory farming, food industry and culture and believes it to violate animal rights and the fact of putting animals into unbearable position at the moment of their slaughtering and their lifestyle, in general is beyond his understanding. But in “Eating Animals” the author does not try to look deeper
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.
Final Essay Social policy’s main purpose is to ensure the wellbeing of humans. This policy includes various topics such as civil rights, gun policy, recreational drug use, and even women’s rights. (Social Policy, n.d.). The broadness of the social policy causes an array of opposing opinions, especially between the Democratic and Republican party. For example, Democrats believe homosexuals should have equal rights to heterosexuals.
My objective is to address this question working within a utilitarian perspective. I believe that there are two main reasons why is important to address this problem within the utilitarian approach. First, utilitarianism has proven to be a great tool in the animal rights movement. The 'equal consideration of interest for all who can experience pleasure and pain' is a simple and powerful maxim to defend the need to transform the way we treat non-human animals. Even if Peter Singer did not start the animal rights movement, he was the one who popularised it.
In his work, Tom Regan establishes the rights of animals used in scientific research. He argues that when animals are used as objects of experiment, they are not respected and their inherent value is not acknowledged. Having inherent value, as defined by Regan, is a state, in which a being is not just a vessel, but a being with a complex mental life. All who have inherent value are to have it equally.