Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia.
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 are living creatures that have feelings just like a human being. Animals are not like us on the physical part, but that doesn’t mean that we have the right to kill, hurt or even experiment with them. If you ever had a pet or knew someone related to you who had a pet, they’d probably always be talking about how kind, sweet, beautiful, and lovely their animals are. Animal are even used to test products such as Shampoos, perfumes and cosmetics. Those products aren’t like the ones we use, they have different types of chemicals and they try them on the animals to see if it will affect us.
The singular homing abilities of some species, for instance, the incredible mechanisms for self-defense or attack, the astonishing (in human terms) capacity for self-sacrifice displayed by ants and bees, and so on. All these are certainly enough to intrigue even the most minimally curious among us. But do they provide support for the view that these beings have moral rights?” (1986/87, p.192-193) This article highlights irreconcilable conflict between the two sides. Jan Narveson addresses Tom Regan, the author of The Case for Animal Rights, “he in the preceding argument, refers to just anybody who doesn 't already accept whatever moral principle we are trying to establish. This does raise a question just who "anybody" is here.
It is hard to understand why an animal should be used to conduct research which is aimed at finding medicine for the human disease (Singer) . Singer notes that majority of human beings believe that other species are there to make human life comfortable and therefore it is inevitable to use nonhuman to please human. Sussex university philosophers believe that it is through liberty, fraternity, and equality that human will change their attitudes towards animals and consider mistreatment of the animal as a practice which should not happen (Singer). By classifying animal exploitation as illegal, it will be possible to attract the
His ethics is focused on the rights of individual animals. Regan believes that animals are subjects of experience whose lives matter to them. This infers that animals hold intrinsic value themselves and has various rights. However, currently with animal testing, caging and hunting, animals are being deprived of their rights. Although it is a bit extreme comparison, Regan compares the situation of animals to slavery.
Perhaps giving animals the likeness of a machine is to far. However, the concept of animals only being able to learn from experience and not from teaching the way humans do helps serperate the two parties and further push the idea that we are different and should not hold the same rights. Another argument used by the supporters of animal testing is the notion of voluntary consent. Human beings have the mental capacity to personally volunteer themselves for experimentation for the advancement of modern medicine if they so desired. Animals, on the other hand, lack this mental capacity.
From difference perspective animals are the most suitable research subject. For utilitarianism, everybody get counted equally in the calculation of happy and painful consequences, happiness is not only related to the behavior of that parties, in this case is the suffering animals, but also involve everyone affected by this act, (Banner, 1968), The case for animal experiments is that they will produce such great benefits for humanity that it is morally acceptable to scarify the lives of a few animals, this is where support animal testing is morally
Looking at pets for example, society implements laws protecting these animals because becoming aware of a pet in pain would lead to human discomfort due to numerous facts such as the strong friendly bond people have with their pets. Though if we look at the case of eating meat, most of society does not extend their moral code to protect the animals farmed or hunted for food because they are protecting their interests such as the pleasure they enjoy from the taste of meat or the energy it gives their bodies. The interest of not having to pay more than required is also a strong contributing factor to the way animals are treated. Here human moral code is not extended to look after these animals. Because even though farming and hunting animals has extreme consequences to the environment and the animals suffering on farms, it has little direct discomfort to humans such as seeing a mans best friend in pain.
Many animal rights activists regularly protest the use of animals in all kinds of research. Some more extreme altruistic risk punishment under the law for various activities such as stealing animals from research facilities, releasing animals from farms, and even acts of terrorism (Pilkington,