Machan's Arguments Against Animal Rights

Following that, it would be a mistake to presume that religion and God to be the origin of moral ideas, because humans themselves invented an image of God and the rules that people should obey. Thus, it means that morality does not come from religion but comes from human nature; and people do not have to be religious to develop morality inside them, but definitely religions play a significant role in building a moral basis of the

These individual animals are not seen as having its own rights and value. Regan’s view on ethics pursues is revolutionary to change this view on animals. He sought out liberation for animals because he views animals having their own intrinsic worth. Individual animals are not a means to an end, rather these individuals are ends within

However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person. Thus, I argue if Kant’s theory were true, it would be very difficult to be a good person as utilitarianism do not allow for acts that go beyond duty. Kant’s argument suggests that good will is the only thing good without qualification. First, Kant begins to distinguish between things that are good without qualification and things that are good only under certain qualified conditions. For example, gifts of nature such as understanding, wit, and judgement, or gifts of fortune such as power, riches,

Human rights are the rights that a person has for the sake of being human (Donnelly, 2003), these rights are human rights because they only apply to humans. Every human being, regardless of race, religion and gender has a claim these rights. The term right can be interpreted in different ways according to different aspects such as the central moral and the political senses. In the sense of rectitude, the term right refers to as the right thing to do, the entitlement aspect suggests that a right is having a right to do something. Human rights are established by human needs, such as the right to basic health care, it is something that all humans need, and it is up the government to provide basic health care to all human being.

In the Groundwork, the notion of the good does not rely on feeling or sensation; rather than it derives from the rational directly. Kant points out that every motive has an intended effect on the world. When desire drives us, we first examine the possibilities that the world leaves open to us, selecting some effect at which we wish to aim. But, if we act in accord with practical moral law, we encounter a significant difference since the only possible object of the practical law is the Good, since the Good is always an appropriate object for the practical law. Viewing the Good as rational consolidates

BODY 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

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.

2: The State of Nature]. According to Locke, all people in addition to be created equal naturally have the rights of life, liberty, and estate. While John Locke states that this equality and inherent possession of rights is “simply obvious”, human existence has not always reflected that sentiment meaning this assumption by Locke could be more emotional than intellectual. Where is his evidence that this is an indisputable truth? How would slavery or poverty be accounted for if that was undeniably true?

The first is that “without freedom there can be no morality.“this is also used as justification for his view that only action can have a moral judgement associated with it. The second is that morality is an innate function of humans “we have it within ourselves”. Jung also heavily implies that the collective unconciuos is a force of good and that styling our actions in accordance with its “wishes” we can find the “right” path. This is not the same as trying to be “normal” which Jung calls “a hell of sterility and hopelessness” but rather the act of conforming to the moral ideal of society. The third is that the“shadow“is necessary for moral behaviour which coincides with his belief that for good to exist there must be evil.

His theory conceives human rights as rights of citizens rather than of human beings. The theory is construed for a body of people who form a political society rather than the human race forming a moral community . Reality however shows that human nature is not an immutable essence but a mixture of elements and values such as possibilities, interest, power and immunities, dignity, rationality and liberty. The conflict of theories can be solved by balancing prima facie rights which are not absolute but are dealt with case by case, the balancing is to be against each other not wishing merits in terms of some different ultimate standard of value such as