Screaming Chicken's theory of animal rights. I'd love to hear your comments, problems with the presentation watever! Thanks! "This presentation address’s just a couple of the reasons regarding the theories around animal rights, and in no way represents a absolute argument for the rights of animals. There are many other compelling reasons to convert to a plant based diet, what follows is simply one of those reasons."

1. Screaming Chicken
Productions Presents:

2. The Theory of Animal Rights:
Agriculture

3. This presentation address’s just a
couple of the reasons regarding
the theories around animal rights,
and in no way represents a
absolute argument for the rights of
animals. There are many other
compelling reasons to convert to a
plant based diet, what follows is
simply one of those reasons.

4. Most people agree that it is
morally wrong to inflict
unnecessary suffering and
death to animals.

5. But what is considered
unnecessary suffering and pain?
Most people follow what our
society says about this issue.
Our society, and consequently
our laws dictate what is
considered unnecessary
suffering and pain.

6. For Example, our society
condemns and punishes incidents
of “animal cruelty” such as dog
fighting or microwaving cats.

7. Dog Fighting

8. Microwaving Cats

9. Animal Agriculture, however accounts
for over 98% of our societies use of
animals. It is estimated that over 27
billion animals are brought into the
world and killed each year - in North
America alone.

10. This use of animal agriculture
can be considered morally
unnecessary when one
considers the following:

11. Firstly, The Americans Dietic
Association, and Dietitions of Canada
state that “…Vegetarian diets are
healthful, nutrionally adequate, and
provide health benefits…”

12. Dietians of Canada

13. Also, entire nations have had
religious vegetarians sustaining
themselves off little or no animal
agriculture for thousands of years.
Religious vegetarians consist of
Hindu’s, Sikh’s, Buddhists and
Jains.

14. Sikh Vegetarians

15. Furthermore, many medical and health
organizations such as the Physician’s
Committee for Responsible Medicine
are advocating a vegan diet to reduce
cancer, diabetes and a host of other
diseases.

16. Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine

17. Therefore, we can conclude that animal
products are unnecessary. Once one has
established that animal products are
unnecessary to sustain life, the arguments in
support of the continued use of animals
agriculture cannot be taken in form of
necessities.

18. Sentience of animals is one of the
most key factors in the argument in
favour of animal rights.

19. Sentience is defined as:
“the ability to experience
pleasure and pain”.

20. Pleasure

21. Pain

22. “The question is not, can they
reason? Nor can they talk? But
can they suffer?”
- Jeremy Bentham

23. “If a being suffers, then there can be no
moral justification for refusing to take
that suffering into consideration....

24. “No matter what the nature of the being,
the principle of equality requires that its
suffering be counted equally with the
like suffering of another being”
- Peter Singer

25. Recognizing Sentience is the first step in
understanding the theory of animal rights.
However, it is not just the ability to feel pain
that propels the theory of animal rights. The
theory is morally supported by the natural
instincts of all animals.

26. Firstly, all forms of sentient life seek
freedom, and consequently liberation
from any oppressor. This is true in
the case of human slavery, as well
as in the case of animal confinement.

27. The degree of moral infringement of
these comparisons is irrelevant. The
point remains however, that any
captive being desires to live life on
their own accord.

28. Live life on their own accord.

29. All sentient beings have a natural desire
for basic needs such as food, shelter
and reproduction. Animals desire food
above all else so that they may continue
to live.

30. They desire shelter so that they are kept
save from predators. They desire
reproduction so that their species may
continue to live on. All animals are
cognitive of these needs as they readily
seek them out.

31. Cognitive of these needs.

32. If you accept that animal products
are unnecessary to sustain human
life, and that animals do indeed
suffer, then you already have a basic
understanding of this theory of
animals rights.

33. To further understand this theory of
animal rights, one must look at the
arguments that are in favor of
exploitative animal use, and why
these arguments are fundamentally
flawed, mirroring arguments of
racism and sexism.

34. One of the most prominent arguments in
favour of animal agriculture use is that
animals are inferior to humans, and thus it is
morally acceptable to treat them as
commodities.

35. Treat them as commodities.

36. Intelligence, however, is not a deciding factor
when attributing moral consideration to a
being. Mentally delayed humans, who while
admittedly are inferior in terms of intelligence,
are given equal rights and consideration when
it comes to the right to live free of pain, with a
shortened life span and to live free of death.

37. All mentally delayed humans and
animals both share a want to live free
of pain, without death or suffering,
because both have some degree of
sentience.

38. They are more or less the same
when viewed for intelligence; yet we
award one moral consideration, when
we don’t give a thought to the other.

39. We do not award moral consideration.

40. It should be noted however, that it has
only been in recent years that those with
mental disabilities have become
accepted into society. They were once
treated quite similarly to how animals in
agriculture are treated now.

41. Another prominent argument is that eating
animals is natural and that we’ve done it for
thousands of years. The word natural
however, is nothing more than a label, and
is often used to defend operations that have
been deemed immoral, but still operate
because it is of our “nature”.

42. This argument has often been used to
defend racism, sexism, and other forms of
discrimination or oppression. There have
been documented vegetarians for over 2000
years, proving that even if animal use for
agriculture was “natural”, it was not
necessary.

43. A Once “Natural” Practices.

44. Another position defending the consumption
of animal product is that they taste good. This
argument has no sound moral standing; it is
the same argument that a proponent of
slavery or sexism would use. It is enjoyable,
profitable, but not a necessity for us to eat
animal flesh.

45. It is enjoyable, profitable, but not a
necessity for us to eat animal flesh.
Similarly, it is enjoyable, profitable, but not
necessary for one to commit acts of
sexism, or for one to be a proponent of
slavery.

46. Make no mistake; the degree of moral
infringement is not the matter to be
discussed here. The point is that all three of
these actions satisfy the proponent, are
completely unnecessary, and morally
abhorrent.

47. No Moral Standing.

48. Animal Agriculture is first and foremost
an unnecessary practice. On top of the
above moral arguments, animal
agriculture contributes to many other
massive worldwide problems.

49. Supporting animal rights isn’t an arduous or
impossible task. By cutting out portions of
animal products out of ones diet, and slowly
reverting to a Vegan diet one can start to be
the voice for the voiceless, and end animal
suffering and death.

50. “Do we, as humans, having an ability to reason
and to communicate abstract ideas verbally and
in writing, and to form ethical and moral
judgements using the accumulated knowledge of
the ages, have the right to take the lives of other
sentient organism, particularly when we are not
forced to by hunger or dietary need, but rather
do so for the somewhat frivolous reason that we
like the taste of meat?”
- Dr. Peter Cheek