In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument.
Many of us can have different opinions on what animal rights mean and what it is. We can have two sides on it, one is where we should stop the cruelty and stop many factories from brutalizing the animals they have, and another side where we could just don’t do anything and leave them be and accept the fact that we eat them. I know if someone can stop any industries it’s us because we have the mindset to do it and accomplish it, carpe diem. Lastly, we should have animal rights with some limitations and taking some things under
Is hunting for sport (not food or survival) morally justified? At one point of time hunting was very crucial for survival but now some would say hunting is nothing more than a violent form of recreation that the majority of hunters do not need for subsistence. Those who support hunting may say it does more good than bad for economic reasons. Outsiders are more concerned with the pain and suffering and loss of life endured by the animals. A study conducted by a Yale professor concluded that 60% of Americans disapprove of sport hunting and about one-third of Americans favor a total ban on hunting (Achor 138). I believe hunting animals for sport and not for survival is completely wrong and should be illegal.
In the articles of Jeremy Rifkin, Victoria Braithwaite, and Ed Yong, there's a deep research and debate whether animals should be given the right to have human rights or not. All authors include their perspective on the issue and provide scientific evidence. However, I believe that there should be a separation of rights between animals and humans because there is no biological basis for drawing the line. Giving the right to apes, what factors exclude other mammals like dogs, cats, and birds.
Thanks to the collective efforts of celebrities and concerned organizations, the monkeys were spared from being used as guinea pigs for an otherwise “cruel”
We are not alone on this Earth. We, humans, have animals by our side. We share this inhabitable planet together with animals, and they should have same right as we do on this beautiful planet. Animals are pure instinctual living creatures who never think before following their instincts. They won’t think otherwise before killing a person. Animals who are able to surpass these barriers are able to receive our empathy and their rights, but in Jeremy Rifkin’s, “A Change of Heart About Animals,” he talks ideas about all animals should receive our empathy for great acts of the few. The individual animal receive its equal rights, not by a single entity achieving it for the mass, but by the individual must showing intelligences, emotions and feelings, and most importantly, the ability to co-exist with others; including human and other animals alike.
Do animals need a “Bill of rights”? The Bill of Rights is a collective names for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing such rights as the freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship.guaranteeing such rights as the freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship. In my opinion, animals should not have a Bill of Rights.
The first attempt and success to climb Mt. Everest occured in 1953. Since then, almost 4,000 people have been able to scale the mountain, but over 230 people have not been able to climb it successfully. There is a chance of accident or death when climbing this mountain or any dangerous activity. All people should should have the right to rescue services even if they knowingly put themselves at risk because there is always a chance of an accident happening, rangers are there to save people in danger, and there are rescue vehicles being produced to be used in case of an emergency.
In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism
One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477). Machan believes he has the best theory explaining why animals do not have rights. He makes this claim by first acknowledging how
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.
The article, “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?” by Ed Yong is trying to convince the reader to see a different side to primates. The Great Ape Project set legal rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutan. United Kingdom and New Zealand protect great apes from experimentation. For the Great Ape Project they are basically setting laws and higher standards for primates to me experimented on or held captive. Not everyone agrees with the GAP’s but some people do have special obligations for the great apes. Great apes are our closest relatives. Former animal researcher Roscoe Barlett researches about primates and wants to extend the rights for the animals. Kevin Martin,
The primate freedom organization protects primates from inhuman experimentation in hopes to stop animal experimentation. They also donate Primate Freedom Tags and provide research to other organizations. Finally, they write articles for campus publications, foster community, and campus-based Primate Freedom Projects, and work to connect all primate freedom efforts
Wondering why animals act a certain way is possibly a question that can never be answered correctly. Asking why animals act a certain way in an environment though, now that may be a question that can be answered! It has become a proven fact that animals act differently in every different environment and around every different animal or person. For instance, take a lion that is being taken from his home environment to a zoo. Of course, that lion is going to act up before he gets used to his environment because of different reasons like the space, or the other animals, or the food and even the training. Many different aspects of the environment will affect this lion's behavior.
For example the Humane Slaughter Act applies only to slaughterhouses that sell meat to the federal government or the federal government agencies. Another example would include the Twenty Eight-Hour Act. With the Twenty Eight-Hour act animals transported by train were protected while those who were transported by trucks were not. Although there are laws evolving in the protection of animals they have their limits. With laws having their limits the laws may not protect animals under all circumstances. As a society there should be a continuation of proceeding to develop new laws. Animals have rights that are not being protected or considered when they are not given the chance to live without suffering or harm.