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. The both sides of this topic are very controversial because there are many opinions about this and in this essay i will explain the both sides and in between of the argument.
Animals carry an important role throughout human lives every day. Humans look to animals for numerous things such as: pets, a means of production, food, entertainment, experimental means, etc. Many animals carry human like traits, which raises many arguments and different positions on the subject of whether animals deserve rights while others feel that animals are simply animals, but may have certain interests that humans are obligated to respect. The issue is that many people confuse the terms animal rights and animal welfare when there is a fundamental difference between the two that revolves around the rights that humans have to use animals.
According to Mark Twain's, "The Lowest Animal" there are few similarities between man and animal, but many differences. Twain also sends the message that animals are far superior to humans, through various experiments. The main differences noted are related to cruelty, indecency, and fighting, all of which put man below animals. First, cruelty is described as a trait that only man has, not animals. Animals will kill, only for what they need to survive, whereas man will kill for sport and enjoyment. Unlike animals, man kills what he has no use for, that makes man cruel. Man can, and will, knowingly inflict pain on others for his own pleasure. Animals, on the other hand, may inflict pain on other animals, but without a conscious decision to.
What is the difference between wild animals and humans? Humans live in a world of affection, where emotions and self moral rights matter. In the same manner as humans, wild animals live in a world like ours where they too feel emotions. So what is the correct answer to the question… Nothing in reality, wild animals are like humans. In a very similar matter, they both have common characteristics that relate to one another. In many researches today, it has been proven that animals feel the same effectiveness we have towards them. Studies have shown that animals are more like us than we understand; therefore, they deserve human rights.
Americans now are spending way too much money on their pets. In our society, people nowadays are going overboard on what they consider necessary for their animals. People are spending money in the thousands just for their pets to have a few more months of agony and pain. Some people even care more about their animals over their own family. Animals are great and make our lives better but when they are suffering and all we can do is extend their pain for a few months and pay thousands of dollars it just isn’t worth it.
This paper will adimentaly provide the information necessary to support the theory that testing animals is a form of cruelty in most circumstances, and is therefore morally unjustified.
There is much controversy with regards to animal testing for medical research and there has been throughout the centuries. We can trace the issue back all the way to the 4th century when we have the first record of animal experimentation, Aristotle dissecting animals for study. In the 1600s, scientists began using animals as a way to explore the human body which led to many advancements in the medical field. Such advancements include Emil von Bering finding a cure for diphtheria toxin for guinea pigs; further research allowed him to produce a diphtheria vaccine for humans (Bright).In spite of these many medical achievements brought on through the use of animal testing, there are still those that argue the practice is not justifiable and should
In his article “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Rifkin points out that “ they feel pain, suffer, and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love--- and these findings are changing how we view animals.” Currently people are treating animals with disrespect by abusing , eating them , and slaughtering them. Rifkins point of view is to catch people's attention to change their attitude towards animal abuse so that we can think twice about animal cruelty. He states that animals have the similar intelligence as us human beings. I agree with Rifkins point of view for the fact that we need to change the way we treat animals because they’re similar to us human beings.
Making animals test subjects are wrong, no matter what’s its purpose. Is it right to kill those innocent creatures painfully? No. It’s not right to harm them for our own benefits. Every living soul have rights, this includes animals, and just because they can’t speak up for themselves doesn’t mean we can take that away from them. The fact that they can’t speak is a disadvantage, and it’s unethical for us to use their disadvantage against them for our own benefits. Is it not against
A life is a life, i think that every living organisms on this planet that are breathing are important and we all should treat others with respect and with love. Animals are like us, not physically, but they can feel pain and lonely when we mistreated them in some ways. I believe humanity has the ethical obligation to change their behavior towards animals.
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. I believe the secret of his success was the strength of his utilitarian argument for animal liberation. Likewise, most of the advances animals have gained over this forty years have been based on a utilitarian perspective, with all the more influential animal NGOs working within this perspective. Secondly, I believe that the lack of a satisfactory answer to the issue of killing animals is a problem itself for utilitarian ethics, as it undermines its capacity to offer a non paradoxical position about animal ethics. Furthermore, given that the ethics of killing is considered a major problem
Animals are not the tools for human to abuse. Human should treat the animals with respect and equally. There is not a big difference between human and animals. Sometimes, animals have the ability to show the emotions and feeling such as happy, sad, scared or even pain. Besides the basic emotions, the animals are able to form a strong and reciprocal bond to humans or to animals. Even though the animals do not have the ability to speak and write, but they are capable to show emotions and feelings through non-verbal communications or actions. For example: When the owner comes back home, the dog flicks its tails and licks the face of the owner to show its happiness. Moreover, a scientific study shows that dolphins and dogs are intelligent that they are able to make choices. Another example is an infant does not have the ability to speak or write just like animals, but why do most people think that killing an infant is immortal and unethical? This shows that non-human animals and fetus are the same, ending the life of animals without their permission is
We wouldn’t subject our pets to burning, starving, and isolation, so why is it okay to subject other animals to this cruel treatment? Animal testing is harmful not only because it is unsafe, but because it poses a question of moral judgement. Testing on animals should be illegal because it is unethical, drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe, and many animals lack the protection required for their safety.
Animals are being abused everyday and they are not taken into consideration when you see them being abused. They are suffering and they are being abused everyday and you all need to stop it. Animal cruelty is not something that just goes away the person doing it will keep doing it until someone stops them. Everyone needs to stop animal abuse and if everyone starts to make a difference others will to. Animals need help with this and everyone needs to help them. Animals all over the world are being abused every single day most of them will not make it to see tomorrow or have the love of a family they desire.
Some people assume that just because animals cannot speak that they cannot feel pain. It is not okay to torture living beings that have their own thoughts and breathe the exact same air us humans breathe. It is unjust and selfish to stand by and take no action while everyday hundreds if not thousands of innocent animals die without reason. No matter how much fur or how many limbs the creature has; it should be treated as equal as a person. A heart beat is a heartbeat regardless of the body it’s in.