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
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 Animal Bill of Rights is a petition sponsored by the Animal Legal Defense Fund that protects animals from unnecessary suffering caused by humans. The Bill of Rights provides basic rights to laboratory animals, farm animals, companion animals and wildlife. It enumerates the right for animals to be free from cruel and unnecessary experiments. The bill proposes animals should be in an environment which satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs. By signing the Bill of Rights, we agree that animals, like all sentient beings, are entitled to basic legal rights in our society. I agree with the idea of creating a Bill of Rights for animals because humans share similar characteristics with animals, thus we have a moral obligation to
Should animals really have their own bill of rights? Are animals really that much of human like that they should have their own bill of rights? There is a slippery slope to those questions most people think twice on what they say because there are pros and cons to giving animals rights. Animals can not even speak to say what they want or what they do not want. Animal bill of rights is basically protection of cruelty and not treating animals wrong.
It is basically survival of the fittest. Giving animal’s rights should be necessary only if they are being abused. For example, forcing dogs to fight other dogs till one is dead. If the animals are killed for our basic human needs than it should not be wrong. I agree with Bob Stevens in his letter to Rifkins when he mentions the fact that pigs would get toys even though there are human beings in the world who do not have such things.
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.
How animals are treated can also affect daily human life. Animal rights are rights given to animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse and enumerates further rights for laboratory animals, farm animals, companion animals, and wildlife. Some animals should have a Bill of Rights. This law does go against centuries of human culture. This law would increase the cost of food.
Mistreating animals as if one does not care for them is the same as mistreating humans. By mistreating poor doubtless animals it affects them and can sometimes lead into suffering stress. If humans are able to protect each other from harm, then why cannot animals do the same thing by having rights? This question is usefully asked for those who try to protect the rights of animals. In the article Of Primates and Personhood the author Ed Yong, a science journalist, contends, “I feel we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals… ‘all creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status’”
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
Abstract Human life is precious, then how about animals? Ending human life is considered as unethical and this is against the law. However, this does not apply to animals. Even though most families treat their animals as part of their family members, animal euthanasia is still a controversial issue nowadays. Millions of dogs are euthanized in each year and several methods are used by the veterinarian to put the animal to death.
I believe that all animals should be treated but not as equal as humans. I think that animals need to have The Animal Bill of Rights because it can stop animal abuse, unnecessary animal experiments, and the death of many innocent creatures but animals can not have an equal rights as humans have. We can not ignore human suffering and focus only on animals rights. On the one hand I understand that passing the Animal Bill of Rights, while it is true that it could limit the amount of animal abuse. In Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart about Animals” he states, “Studies on pigs’ social behavior funded by McDonald's at Purdue University, for example, have found that they crave affection and are easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other.
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. Additionally animal rights are violated when they are used as products for experimentation. Animal experimentations
Rights are against the use of force and they are our primary if not only our means of survival. There is only one fundamental right: To live successfully, a man has to make his own choices as well as animals too (Roleff,2014,p.33). There is a huge difference between giving animals their rights which is less than human beings and not to give them rights at all. Nowadays animals are presented in many places of entertainment such as zoos and cruces as well as aquariums where the audients pay a lot of cash to watch fun and exciting things going on, it sure makes us happy but what about the animals are they happy too? Are places of entertainment appropriate for wild animals to live in it normally? let`s find out. Some people believe that animal
A life is a life, i think that every living organisms on this planet that are breathing are important and we all should treat others with respect and with love. Animals are like us, not physically, but they can feel pain and lonely when we mistreated them in some ways. I believe humanity has the ethical obligation to change their behavior towards animals. In the article, “ A change of Hearts on Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin stated some of his key points that humans should focuses more on animals’ feelings.