Animal Rights And The Rights Of Animals

Drawing on animal rights claims, the questionable moral status of animals and the land ethic, this essay seeks to argue that zoos; a place in which wild animal’s are held in captivity, are inherently unethical, because they violate the ethical and moral standard in which animals have a claim to. Citing experts in the animal ethics field, this essay will be supported by firstly establishing that animals do in fact have “animal rights” and similarly, that they have a claim to a moral status relative to that of humans. Following this, this essay will show that the animal rights, which zoo animals are privy to, allows us to set an ethical standard on which humans have a duty to treat animals, especially when held in captivity. Analyzing this ethical standard with which me must treat zoo animals, we can deduce that zoos are in fact not ethical in nature and in practice.

Non-human animals should have the same rights that humans have such as not being used as food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation.

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

The Animal Bill of Rights is meant to protect animals that don’t have legal protection. There are laws that protect some of the animals, but are often insufficient and full of loopholes. In this society we have many people who think the total opposite of defending the animals. It may be because of selfish thinking. Sometimes one might think, it is needed for them to survive or because they want to be able to show their children the animals in person at zoos. Now, the question is, if animals need a Bill of Rights? I strongly believe that they do need a Bill of Rights because there are animals on the day-to-day basis that are being mistreated and abused by humans that don’t care for them. We need the Bill of Rights because it will give a better voice to the animals being treated as if they were nothing in this world. I agree with what the source indicated “ Animals in the U.S. are considered just “property” by law, even though they are living, feeling beings”. If they were not considered “property” humans wouldn’t be harming these animals and would rather be caring or not giving them much attention if they aren’t an animal enthusiast.

When it comes to animals, everyone seems to have an opinion. Some love them, some hate them. Some believe that animals feel and experience authentic emotions, while others believe that they do not have the capability to do so. A lack of belief in the existence of emotions in animals is often used to justify wrongful treatment. Are some animals more aware of feelings than others? These questions and more demand answers. Animals definitely have emotions, and because of this we must rethink many of our modern practices.

Animals are found throughout lives of humans. As companions, entertainment, test subjects and food, animals serve vital roles throughout our lives.The Animal Bill of Rights, through the Animal Legal Defense Fund, attempts to defend the basic legal rights of all animals. However, to weigh the need for such an act, one must compare the suffering of animals to the benefits such suffering gives to humankind. It’s much more important to highlight the crucial medical advances that lab animals have provided over the injustices they may suffer, but this suffering can not and should not be ignored. It is with measure that we do not enact a bill of rights for animals, however we bring new awareness of animal research and the ethical treatment of all

Introduction, animals that are being tested safety of their products that’s been a subject of an intense debate for over 10 years. While, a lot of people that alleged animals, the remained animals are being subjugated by the research cosmetics companies all over the country/all over the world. Even though, the scientists frequently profit from animal research, I don’t think all the suffering, the pain, and the animals dying are worth just trying find out the human benefits from the products.

“Nearly as many, 68 percent, were concerned or very concerned about the well-being of animals used in ‘sports’ or contests as well as animals in laboratories (67 percent) (Kretzer, 1).” Many people question whether an animal is capable of thought and emotions. Others feel as though animals are the equivalent of humans and should be treated as such. Since the 1800’s, animal rights has been a topic that has several different sides including two extremes. If animals can react to their environment, emote, and are aware of things done to or with them, then they should have similar rights to humans.

Do you know 2 million animals are killed by wildlife services ? Animal rights have been a prevalent issue since 1970s. An organization called Animal Legal Defense Fund has supported a petition that strengthens the protection of animal rights. The petition states that all animals are to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse. The Animal Defense Fund is working on trying to show congress the importance of the Animal Bill of Rights. Every day, animals are being manipulated by humans to do things that they don’t want to do, or that violate their rights as living creatures on Earth. Animals and humans should have equal rights despite of their barriers . As an animal lover, I agree with the idea of creating the Bill of Rights for animals.

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

The study of good and bad, right and wrong, moral principles or value held by a person or society, promoting human welfare, maximizing freedom minimizing pain and suffering is called ethics. The discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings and also the value and moral status of the environment and its non-human contents is called environmental ethics. It considers the ethical relationship between the humans and the environment. Animal and animal rights are the highlighted topic in the environmental ethics.

Animal Rights is a topic that has been debatable for many years. Some think that animals are much smaller than humans, and that they have no value whatsoever. Others think that animals are worth every bit and that we cannot treat them with any sort of disrespect, that includes eating cows, chickens, or even eggs and milk. Both sides of the topic will have many opinions from around the world and facts about animal rights.

Animal rights is the philosophy or idea that all animals should be able to live a life free from human exploitation pain and suffering. According to Gale ” The idea of animal rights has roots in ancient times. In Greek philosophy, the animists believed that both animals and people had souls. The vitalists believed that humans were animals but at the top of the chain and could use animals for their benefit.” ( Animals Rights, par.2). In the early twentieth century in the United States, there was no law that regards to animal experimentation. In 1937 there was a pharmaceutical company that developed medicine called Elixir Sulfanilamide. When the medicine was released the company was unaware that the substance was harmful because the drug

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.

In his paper on animal rights, Peter Singer takes a moment to discuss the preservation of endangered species. Singer entertains the idea that one can argue that the preservation of an endangered species is similar to preserving a work of art by the fact that the reason for preserving an endangered species could be the enjoyment of humans. For instance, if I broke into the Louvre and destroyed the one Mona Lisa on display I would prevent any further person the joy of travelling to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa ever again. This line of thinking, therefore is extended to animals where the extinction of a species could be seen as depriving people from further enjoyment. Part of the appeal for continuing a species’ existence is the fact that humans derive pleasure from being able to experience things. People flock to see artworks like the Mona Lisa because they want to experience something by seeing the painting in person, and the rarity of these pieces of art is part of their appeal. This analogy is applied to endangered species based on the similarities between the two, in that people enjoy them and there is only limited access to an endangered animal as the animals may only live in zoos or specific environments in the wild. If an endangered species were to go extinct it would be unfortunate because of how people are no longer able to enjoy them anymore. Since important works of art are actively preserved for continued enjoyment, Singer believes it could be argued that