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. In the early 1920’s, women were denied rights against voting, work, and equal pay. In the 1800’s, slavery was very prevalent in America. After many years of protest and opposition, women and blacks alike were granted equal rights. Throughout history, humans have fought and won equal rights …show more content…
For example, an individual might have a pet dog that lives with him. He or she has probably never even considered eating their beloved pet, but wouldn’t think twice about ordering a steak for lunch. If people eat cows regularly without thinking anything of it, why not eat a dog? The only answer to this is that humans have formed prejudice views based on species that make us perceive one animal as a loyal companion, and another as lunch. Marginal humans have inherent value which means they are granted rights. There is no rational premise for denying that animals have inherent value, therefore humans have no reasoning for denying animals of rights. Animals have the capacity to form relationships with their species, feel pain and pleasure, make decisions, and understand their life’s importance to them, therefor by inherent value, animals should have rights.
An objection to this argument could target the claim that all animals have inherent value. Regan states that subjects-of-a-life have inherent value, and that the difference between subjects-of-a-life and other living organisms is that subjects-of-a-life are aware and value their lives. Doesn’t this mean that the reason subjects-of-a-life have inherent value is that they care and are aware of their own lives? But, since there are animals in this world who are non-sentient, then based off of this premise they do not have inherent value rendering
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Today, most would think that all humans have equal rights. Unfortunately, though, women are still not treated as equal as men. Women do not get paid as much as men do, they are expected to stay home and take care of the children, and they do not have as many job opportunities as men do. All of this is in spite of the fact that women have been fighting for their rights in this country since the 1800s. Two of the most widely known speeches are “Ain’t I a Woman” and “Speech at Seneca Falls Convention.”
The theory or idea that animal has rights comes from the rights that are traditionally moral and politically correct rights is a virtue from the type of culture that we are. Animal liberation comes from the utilitarian tradition that comes from ethics and mortality as coming about as a result of pleasure and/or pain, as someone’s overall well-being. When animals are caged harvest, this diminishes their well-being, which gives us the mortality that we address their decreased well-being and prescribes to us to liberate
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,
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.
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.
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
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. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
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
People need to start spaying and neutering their pets pets. They need to stop because it is an overpopulation of domestic pets, and if they spay and neuter them, that would help a lot. Cats and dogs produce a good number of puppies and kittens. All of those is not going to get a home. This is why we need to spay and neuter our pets.
A letter written by Lois Frazier consists of additional opinions, on Jeremy Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart about Animals.” Rifkin is an animal rights advocate, he conveys his belief that animals are quite similar to humans. Frazier supports Rifkin’s humane ideas and voices several novel opinions of disproportionate rights, such as confinement, affliction, and depletion. In the letter, she sheds light on concerning topics that Rifkin does not address. She first concentrates on an animal’s right to be free and live in a safe environment.
It does not come in degrees and is not dependent on the being’s experiences and usefulness. Regan argues that if something has inherent value, it has rights and therefore deserves respect. An animal’s value is no less than a human’s, even when we fail to find an alternative in pursuing our goals. Our chosen goals should never be associated with
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).
We all know that women didn 't have as many rights as men, and they still don 't. Women can now do more than they used to, but they still aren 't equal with men. They have had to fight for so many things like the right to vote and to be equal to men. The 19th amendment, the one that gave women the right to vote, brought us a big step closer. The Equal Rights Movement also gave us the chance to have as many rights as men. Women have always stayed home, cleaned the house, and didn 't even get an education.
(“Human Society Organization,” 2014, para.5) Should there be such thing as animal rights? Yes they should because animals are just like humans. They have a nervous system and can be affected both physically and mentally. Animal Exploitation comes in many different ways. Some