Numerous people have attempted to justify the use of such methods by putting down or rather, dismissing the animal as a creature lacking the mental capacities to be considered equals to that of a human being. In their book "Animal Experimentation : The Moral Issue" authors Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum say, "holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves" (104). He then goes on to explain that "animals do not have such moral capacities" (Baird 105). And as a result of this "we can't violate their rights because they have none" (Baird 105). Dismissing the animal as nothing more then an object may not seem like the most reasonable defense against the use of animals for testing
This leaves these animals to receive different treatment to animals owned as pets. The moral codes and laws that protect pets do not protect strays. Society finds it acceptable to subject strays to harsher treatment and suffering that would not be acceptable if inflicted on pets, such as being kept for long times in cages or
Studies done by Maneesha Deckha a professor at the University of Victoria affirms, “Many of us who live with non-human animals would count our non-human companions as members of our families, even as our kin. Yet the law’s definition of family, however much it has shifted towards the inclusion of non-normative relationships, still excludes non-humans and even commodifies them as chattels. For this, and a multitude of other reasons, animals merit better legal recognition”. Which she then reasons why ethically animals should not be given equality due to it being absurd. Examining each animal’s capacity to reason, suffer, emote, use language, make tools, or exhibit some other trait presumed to define what it means to be human is irrational.
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.
In her work “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights,” Vicki Hearne challenges common beliefs of animal rights, arguing that animal rights groups do very little to actually benefit animals. She argues that natural selection should be allowed to take place for wild animals, and animals such as cats and dogs should not be seen as property. To persuade the audience to support her position, she uses ethos, pathos, and logos. Her credibility as a trainer makes the logic behind her views reliable, her logic reinforces the examples she uses, and she appeals to emotion using her relationship with her Airedale, Drummer, to support everything her argument is saying. Through these strategies, Vicki Hearne effectively counters the current, popular views of the
She makes sure to note that in this case equality is not referring to treatment, but just to consideration of interests. For example, it would be silly to talk about a dog’s right to vote. According to her, just because the being doesn’t have rights, doesn’t necessarily mean their interests count for less than a being that does have rights. However, she rejects the notion of equality that Singer presents, that the suffering of one being be counted equally to the suffering of another regardless of the nature of the being. She states that “if we can find a significant difference in capabilities between human and non-human animals, this could serve to justify regarding human interests as primary” (Steinbock,
This is one of the many reasons again why I am against animal testing. The animals can be treated poorly and thrown into so many stressful and dangerous situations, and they have no say in any of it. Scientist do however explain why animals make good test subjects, they couldn’t do test on some humans to see what happens when you do something to the brain but because some animals are similar they can get close enough results. Yes, animal subjects help science and without it I know we wouldn’t have some of the advances like we do
If she wanted to condemn animal mistreating, her analogies should have clear-cut evidence as to why it is horrible. However, the basis of all her disputes were absurd; she states in one of her analogies, “You misunderstand the nature of likeliness; I would even say you misunderstand willfully to the point of blasphemy” (PDF pg.17). Costello compared being oblivious about animal abuse to profane talk; the difference of these two topics do not seem to help her case at all. She then goes on to compare human and animal intelligence. The argument was based on the fact that scientists could prove, but also not prove that animals have high intelligence.
Animal abuse is highly illegal. Scientists classify humans as animals because we, humans, share similar qualities and traits to a type of animal like mammals. However when scientists talk in the sense of intelligence, humans are not classified as animals. To define animals is: any
Predators are like robbers of their prey’s life. Once one is caught, predators never let go. While some may argue that being in a zoo will affect an animal’s hunting skills, it’s not always the best plan to let endangered animals free in the wild. It stands to reason that society should continue keeping our animals safe from danger in
In his work, Tom Regan establishes the rights of animals used in scientific research. He argues that when animals are used as objects of experiment, they are not respected and their inherent value is not acknowledged. Having inherent value, as defined by Regan, is a state, in which a being is not just a vessel, but a being with a complex mental life. All who have inherent value are to have it equally.
In Norcross conclusion was don’t eat factory farm animal due to the way they were raised, not saying that we cannot meat but to mainly only open range growing animals. He uses argument by analogy as A has probably P, B is like A, therefore, B has probably P. This argument is A story of Fred in the situation of the puppies, B is a situation of animals raised in factory farms, P is that immortality of Perpetuating the situation. We covered the story of Fred and the puppies we said no that is wrong, even with the harvest cocoamones, in this discussion, one of the company dated then it must be morally right. Even if it enhances a gustatory experience.
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.