Should animals have a bill of rights? I am going to disagree with the statement animals need a “Bill of Rights”. Let me start off by explaining what an animal bill of rights is, well the human bill of rights gives us the right to do everything we do today. However if animals were to get these rights how could that work out ? Animals should not have rights because they would choose not to be experimented on, not choose to be sacrificed for food , and my last reason is they are animals they do think like us according to films like Blackfish and Food inc. Also i'm going to explain why should animals get rights , if they were to get rights what will happen to food, and will it go against human tradition.
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
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.
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
Teresa Platt is an executive director for the Fur Commission U.S.A. division which works on behalf of mink farmers and furriers. The Fur Commission U.S.A represents over 600 mink and fox farming families in nearly 31 states. Throughout the article “Radical Animal Rights Groups Harm Society,” Platt describes to the reader how several animal rights and environmental groups such as the Animal Liberation Front, or the ALF, and the Earth Liberation Front, or the ELF, discriminate against honest farmers. She also claims that radical environmentalists vandalize mink and dairy farmers with the assumption that people can live without misusing animals. Lastly, she maintains that people have always depended on animal products such as food and clothing for survival. Through the article, Platt hopes to inform the reader on what certain environmental groups are doing to farmers and hopes that through this knowledge, the abuse will be stopped.
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
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
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’”
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
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.
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.
For example, some may like dogs, others may like cats, and some people would rather a silverback gorilla. Animals are like private property and if they are owned by people who know what they are doing, the animals will be fine. “As long as animal welfare and public safety laws
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