Arguments Against Non Human Animals

1040 Words5 Pages
Traditionally around the world, animals / non-human animals are being perceivedas material goods or used for various activities such as food, clothing and fashion, research focusses, entertainment, animal hunting sport, animal slaughter in Africa for rituals and so forth. Many philosophers have been advocating in defense of animal rights such as Tom Regan who argues that our treatment to animals is wrong because we violates their rights. However, there are other movements who support animal cruelty such as religious beliefs and utilitarian approaches to animal rights which are acting in favor of humans over non-human animals. In this essay I will be defending the rights of animals and argue about the moral standing of this act against non-human animal cruelty.
I believe and regard non- human animals as occupying the equal and same moral right and capacity just as human beings do. In this case, I argue that animals should not be given the cruel treatment by man as this promotes immorality in human nature. Non-human animals are subject of a life, meaning they are sentient and attentive that they exist, they have similar degrees of biological density they favour some things and dislike others, they make
…show more content…
They believe that a human person has superior intellectual capabilities autonomously than of an animal, such as the ability to reason, judging, knowledge, self-governing, memorizing etc. an argument against this argument is that when a human person is in a deep state of unconsciousness/ on a coma, severely mentally injured or an infant which is merely two weeks old does not occupy the ability to think or act in a sense of reasoning compared to a grown chimpanzee. Therefore, the cognitive capacities occupied by a human being are also available from a non-human animal to a certain
Open Document