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.
As the question consist of an analogical argument, so, I will divide this essay into three parts. I am going to define is that human are animals first, describe the rights we have and then using the Kant’s anthropocentric views, Peter Singer’s specialism, Tom Regan’s views on animal right and some examples, to give a full picture in order to support my stance. In my opinions, I strongly agree that all human are animals, but, there are some differences between the human and animals mentally. Thus, I agree with the statement of “animals also have rights”. However, some of the rights we have, are not capable on animals.
Animals have always played a pivotal role in societies throughout the past. Some communities praise animals, while others use them as a symbol of wealth, and some sectors own animals merely as companions. Throughout the article “The Case Against Pets” Francione and Charlton (2015) argue that animals must not be property, and consequently need to gain basic animal rights. As law professors at Rutgers University, and publishers of a book about animal rights, the author’s viewpoints and research are held credible. Nevertheless, despite their arguments being supported by validated and reliable evidence, both authors are biased towards their viewpoints.
With the development of legal systems and the end of the Second World War, human beings pay more and more attention to their undeniable rights. Many struggles have done in order to achieve the equality of human rights and to against the violence of them within humans. However, whether human rights only belongs to human beings is a controversial issue. There are various opinions about if chimpanzees, which are the most complex non-human animals(Waldau & Whitman, 2002), also deserve human rights. This paper would argue that chimpanzees should be granted some of the basic human rights.
In his argument for animal rights, he first talks about equal consideration for the suffering of animals. “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration” (Singer, 50). I notice he doesn’t say that there can be no moral justification for causing suffering in certain circumstances, just that it should always be taken into consideration when dealing with sentient beings. If a being isn’t sentient, there is nothing to take into account. The purpose of giving equal
Many people presume true that some animals have (or should have) ethical and/or legal rights under certain prosperity. They may rescue abandoned pets, lobby for legislation against animal abuse, feed pigeons in the park, or do any number of other things on behalf of animals. These people are broadly viewed as animal welfarists. Their adherence to the idea of animal rights generally depends on the situation. This is exceptionable to animal rights fundamentalists.
Peter Singer in his essays expands on the concept of speciesism to the public and discusses how the criterion of applying rights to animals and humans is logically inconsistent. The designation of Homo Sapien being the only attribute required for moral importance is too arbitrary. Singer suggests we are to use the clearer requirement of sentience and capacity to feel pleasure and pain to assign moral importance. If this is to be universally applied non-human sentient animals deserve increased moral consideration fitting of their sentient status compared to humans. In this essay I will discuss Peter Singer’s definition of speciesism and through critical analysis look at the roll vegetarianism plays and its incompatibility with his arguments.
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
21 has now achieved "activist magnitude". Justice Iyer has described art. 21 as procedural magna carta protective of life and personal liberty. Right to Life: Justice Bhagwati has observed in the case of Francis Coralie v Delhi AIR 1981 that right to life includes right to live with dignity and along with it all necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, shelter, right to education, right to move freely and mingle with other human beings. In Shantisar Builders v.Narayanan Khimalal Totame the Supreme Court has observed that right to life includes right of food, clothing, decent environment and reasonable accommodation.The only difference between the need of an animal and a human being is of a shelter as an animal needs bare protection of body and for human it has to be reasonable accommodation which allows him to grow in all aspects.
In addition, in the development countries there are numerous of laws that protect animals from persecution and violence except in the poor countries. However, there are plentiful examples and researches which verify that animals have ability to think, show that animals have emotions, and prove that animals can assist humans in their