Animals are different than us in many ways. For example they walk different, eat different, and look different. There are many other traits that animals have that humans don’t and vise versa. Why do we treat animals differently? Is it because they don 't speak like us there for we don 't listen to how they feel? Animals can 't talk for themselves, all they can do is feel the emotion. For example, apes, they are a very smart species. Scientist have found ways to communicate with an animal through sign language--a language we can understand. Scientists have proven that apes are the closest animal species we have to humans. Many people don 't like the fact that apes are being tested. People argue against apes being tested in labs. They also believe that apes should have basic human rights, apes should have freedom. Why do people argue that only apes should have freedom? Apes are still animals. There are many other animals in the world that get tested on in labs and are taken from their homes just to do research on them. If apes are given basic human rights then they would be treated equally, and because they are treated equally by basic human rights then all animals should be treated …show more content…
On the other hand there are some people who believe animals should not have basic human rights. Perhaps they don 't deserve it because animals don 't know right from wrong when their natural instinct is to survive. You can 't punish a animal for killing another animal the way you can punish a human for murder. Humans understand right from wrong. Giving animals basic human rights is also not a good idea because giving animals human rights would mean not being able to test on animals. Who then will there be to test on. It would be inhumane to test medicines on a human and risk losing a Human 's life rather than losing a animals life. By testing on apes and other animals scientist have found many new cures for a lot of diseases. Taking apes and animals out of labs what would we have
According to Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart About Animals,” research has shown that animals are more similar to humans than originally believed. Through the many studies provided, Rifkin claims the need to provide better treatment towards animals. While animals deserve and could benefit from a more humane treatment than what is currently provided, they may not necessarily require a human-like lifestyle simply because of their similarities to humans.
Many Americans blindly believe that animals deserve the same rights as humans, but little do they know about the differences between the welfare of animals and the rights of animals. In the article A Change of Heart about Animals, Jeremy Rifkin cleverly uses certain negative words in order to convince the readers that animals need to be given same rights as humans, and if not more. Research has shown that non-human animals have the ability to “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love” (Rifkin 33). Animals may be able to feel emotions, however this does not necessarily mean that they are able to understand what having rights mean. While humans must accept their moral responsibility to properly care for animals,
In Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, proves his statement that many of our fellow creatures also “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love..”. I agree that animals share similar feelings as us, and I believe that they should be treated in a way that they can feel comfortable and care in their surroundings. Just because animals may not be completely the same as us, that should not give the right to a human to mistreat and abuse of an animal’s life. Animals can be well treated and cared for without giving them the right to be treated as a human.
Primates deserve human rights because they have been forced to do many things that they would never do with their own lives. They are veterans who have been sent up into space only to test how fast they will die, and in what ways they will die. People hold primates against their will to do things that nature would never physically allow them, and don’t care if they completely destroy a species or animal because of it. The problem
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).
In human history, a number of oppressed groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly in the eye of consideration. This means that when the matter concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value, and consideration. Where this equality is not determined by an assembly of facts like that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical strength of their bodies. This is what Peter Singer brings up in his essay: “All Animals are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when matters concern them. Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have some of the fundamental rights and equal consideration that are given to humans.
I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.
Michael Pollan brings to our attention the arguments that relate to the treatment of animals. He begins his essay with examples talking about how pigs are seen as nothing more than meat and how dogs get their own birthday and Christmas presents. Here he questions how certain animals receive different attitudes from us and makes us think about how each animal has a different fate. Pollan wants us to question ourselves and to look at animals from another perspective and see if they deserve more equality or if we need to have a different attitude towards them all together. These arguments are very effective in that they make us question of whether or not our attitude towards certain animals are different because of how they are used or in our eyes some are just more important than others.
Furthermore, the advantages gained from captivity of primates, for research and educational purposes, are extensive. If we were to give primates basic human rights, we would have to release them from confinement under all circumstance, including zoos, sanctuaries, and laboratories. Animal testing and research has lead to many great discoveries, including treatments for AIDs and cancer, it is a huge factor of how we got to be as advanced of a society as we are today. It is also crucial in regards to transplant surgery, cardiac surgery, and joint replacements- as well as vaccinations. Primates are very similar to humans, they are able to display basic emotions (i.e. sadness, joy, anger) and share much of the same DNA (i.e. Great Apes are made up of 97% of matching genes.)
Not all animals need rights just the ones that are more associated with human life. For example, flies, cockroaches, mosquitoes, etc. won't need them because they are little insects that just carry bacteria and other types of diseases. Animals like whales in the film blackfish need rights because it shows how frustrated they get with the small space that they have to live in their whole lives. Giving rights to whales and other animals like dogs and cats etc. won't affect much the human culture because it's just going to give them a little more protection against human abuse towards
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.
There’s an element of second-hand embarrassment felt while walking to a job provided by the cosmetics empire and you notice the streets filled with people herding together like the atrocities they are protesting for: animals. These protesters, wearing makeup on their own, in order to not be mistaken for the ugly testing animal themselves, have allowed for the empire to grow into the untouchable powerhouse it is today, but it is suddenly not ok to get rid of these monsters whose only purpose is to take up space. The protests that are arguing for animals to have basic human rights are not interfering with the animal testing, but with the simple basic human rights of being able to get to one place to another. Think about it: have you ever been in a situation where you are stuck behind someone going slowly and there are other people surrounding you, making it impossible to get around that one slow person?
Summary: In the article, Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research by Ed Yong, he approaches the issue of the rights to apes confronted by a pending Spanish law. The Great Ape Project (GAP), established in 1993, demands a basic set of morals and legal rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans. In June, GAP was able to persuade the Spanish Parliament’s environmental committee to approve a resolution supporting these goals. Fortunately, other countries also took steps to protect great apes from experimentation.
In the Constitution of the United States of America there are a set of rights for citizens called the bill of rights but should animals be able to have their own bill of rights? The Bill of Rights are rights given to citizens of the United states of America. Animal Bill of Rights are rights for animals who can not speak for themselves. Only some animals should be given some rights. For years humans have been using animals as their source of food, but never have known that animals can feel pain so they would be killed ruthlessness.