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
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
Moral Status of Nonhuman Animals Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher that believes we should accept the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle states that all beings, both human and nonhuman animals should have their interests considered with the same weighting. Singer believes this principle must be adopted to avoid becoming speciesist: defined as the preference of one species over another species. He compares this practice to racism and sexism but instead of discriminating by race or sex, we discriminate by species. Through careful consideration of Singer’s argument and objections, we are able to reject his claim that a nonhuman animal has the same interests as a human.
In the article, All Animals Are Equal, author Peter Singer asserts that we ought to give the same admiration to the lives of non-human creatures as we provide for the lives of people that all creatures, human and non-human, are equal. In the article Singer argues 3 different points. Equity, moral thoughts, and moral importance. Singer starts shows equity by explaining how decency does not require measures up to rights. For example, he talks on how puppies are not equal being that they do not really know what voting is and they do not have a benefit to vote.
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.
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.
Tom Regan Regan is professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University. He is a deontologist and an abolitionist. He argues that at least some animals are “subjects-of-a-life”. This means they have beliefs, desires, memories, and sense of their own future, and because of this they must be treated as an end, not a means to an end.
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.
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
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.
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’”
You could save an animal from drowning, but you could save a person from drowning too; the choice is difficult. You could protest for animals to have rights and not be tortured at slaughterhouses and still eat them from factories that do things like kill them in an abusive way. Animal rights, animals should have some rights with some limitations. I have issues involving this topic about animal rights because i have mixed emotions about how we can experiment and torture animals but still have them as pets. In articles by Jeff McMahan, “Eat Animals The Nice Way”, and by Maureen Nandi Mitra, “Animals Are Persons, too”, they talk from two different positions where we should eat animals and another where we shouldn’t experiment on them and let them be.
In the film, "Louis Theroux's African Hunting Party", South African wild game farmers advocate trophy hunting as a necessary activity for saving certain species from inevitable extinction due to illegal wildlife poaching. However, when considering Peter Singer's utilitarian theory on the ethical treatment of non-human animals, the process of shooting and killing an animal to preserve its species seems counterintuitive. Applying Singer's perspective, my position is that trophy hunting is morally unacceptable as it reasserts speciesism by disregarding the suffering of the animals being murdered for sport.
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.
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.