Essay On Animal Rights

Animal Rights
Is it cruel to slaughter animals for eating? If you're an animal lover or vegetarian, you may think it's
unethical to slaughter animals for consuming. There are many different views on animal rights,
according to Philosopher Tom Regan who is a strong believer on animal rights and why they
deserve not to be harmed. He wrote that the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view
animals as our resources, that they are here for us–to be eaten, surgically manipulated or exploited
for sports or money. Once we accept this view of animals– as our resources– the rest is as
predictable as it is regrettable. If we are taught that animals have no moral status it can affect our
understanding on their reasoning of life. Regan Kantians belief was animals have the same rights as
humans, they too feel pain and suffering. Singer who is a Utilitarian believes human beings are of
value so therefore animal rights have no importance. There are positive and negative arguments on
both ends. I see why Regan's views are important and how animals can be looked at as useless
creatures. I never once thought eating meat was unethical. I feel every individual is raised
differently from culture to religious differences. I was brought up eating meat but never thought of
it being inhumane to kill cows, pigs, chickens and fish for food. Now animals like dogs and cats I
do believe have emotions. We also consider them companions so I feel they have a moral status and
rights to be taken care of.
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Animal Rights and Ethics Essay
"Animal Rights and Ethics"
Gary Grey
Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility
Stacey Hiles
March 21, 2011
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".
"Animals Rights and...show more content...
For instance the household animals which we keep as pets have the right to live a happy fulfilled
life, but the spider you washed down the stink or the slug you or a kid poured salt over did not
because they are not a "higher" animal. Even though it might seem wrong or controversial for one
to decide which are 'higher' animals, our society and government have decided this for us. For
example household pets such as dogs and cats are hailed too much higher standards in the United
States than Cows or Chickens. Which raises the question, is it ethically wrong for Animal rights
activists to fight for the rights of some animals and not others?
Animal Cruelty is a subject that spreads far across the United States and into most civilized
cultures. Animal cruelty can either be in the form of intentional abuse, simple neglect, or
abandonment of animals. Whatever forms the abuse takes, however, the animal that is the victim
of the abuse is often helpless and may experience extreme suffering. Animal right activist feel if
you don't know how to take care or treat an animal it can be as deadly as physical abuse to care for
one.
Activist also feel by giving a child a fish, rabbit, or bird to take care of can viewed as intentional
neglect or abuse. This is based upon a child not being able to take care of its self but giving another
life which depends on its care in order for

Essay on Nonhuman Animal Rights
In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the
essay, "Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected," author Tom Regan asserts that animals have
rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan's argument will first be
expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights
are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed
in terms of the incapacitated, etc. Regan positively argues that both human and nonhuman
individuals are experiencing subjects of a life. Experiencing subjects of a life have an inherent value,
which is nevertheless, equal among the populace. One's...show more content...
It is as if one says a human who is an experiencing subject of a life must be able to understand and
communicate its thoughts. Where do animals fit in? Do we discount them because they do not speak
our language and we cannot understand theirs? Experiencing subjects of a life, in the eyes of Regan,
are argued to have an inherent value, a basic right that is equal amongst individuals. Regan believes
that because an individual is a subject experiencing life, said subject has an inherent value. Regan
notes that critics argue that only humans have inherent value, but if such delegation of species takes
place, speciesism, a form of discrimination, the fact of the matter becomes essentially immoral. The
reduction of a subject's inherent value based on grouping of species is indeed a form of
inequality...of speciesism. He argues that in order for inherent value to be portrayed equally,
discrimination of the sort cannot be morally acceptable, nor tolerated. Regan accepts that simply
saying that humans have more inherent value than animals is not a rational justification. One can
say that an individual's mother has more worth than a dog's mother; however, on what grounds does
this argument lie? This is merely an irrational and immoral statement that degrades an individual. In
turn, the justification of which individual has more

Essay on Animals Have Rights Too
Most human beings are inherently speciesist; meaning that they believe one species is superior to
another. (Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2009. 6. Print.) It
can be argued that this is just an expansion of the hardship of human equality, and just as we were
once desensitized to others race or gender, we are now doing the same to animals. In addition, we
don't give much thought to what goes on beyond our own little bubble. We don't care how our food
got there; we just want it. We don't care if our cleaning products or our makeup was tested on
animals, as long as it works.
Animal rights activists claim that the ability to feel pain is the designation of moral worth; and that
while humans have the...show more content...
Both will feel the sting of the smack and react accordingly. Granted, the horse's skin is thicker,
causing the horse to have less of a reaction; however, it can be almost guaranteed that the horse will
react. Our instinct, however, would be to comfort the crying baby, as it is a member of our own
species, thus drawing us to it.
As children, we were all taught the sounds the animals on a farm make. We would picture the
stereotypical farm with a barn and silo, and then be among the heartbroken when we found out
exactly what it was that was waiting for us at dinner. This form of speciesism is possibly the most
common, because it is unknowingly dealt with everyday. The corporations involved in producing
our food often abuse the animals that end up on our plates. This abuse can range from verbal and
physical assault to slitting the animals' throats while they are still fully conscious. However, because
of the lack of publicity on this issue; it often gets overlooked and pushed to the wayside.
Another back burner issue is that of animal testing. Every day, animals in labs are subjected to tests
that are for our benefit. In truth, the difference in the genetic makeup of these animals and us, the
people these results are trying to help, is so significant that the results can be nothing but inaccurate.
To make these creatures endure cruel, often repetitive, and painful tests, only to have a slim

Animal Rights And Human Rights
The idea that animals have rights seems to be heavily agreed on by a large majority of scholars
whom have studied this topic. However, what comes into question is understanding the severity and
range of these rights. How do we determine the level of animal rights? How do we understand
animal rights in relation to human rights? This paper aims to address these questions by showing that
animals have the basic rights to live a life without harm, but cannot have equal rights to humans
because of our dependence on them and their inability to reason and communicate with humans.
Let's start with how humans think and then we will create a connection between human and
emotion and how animals feel. Humans are sentient beings, meaning they feel a wide range of
emotions, including happiness and pain. In general, we try to fill our lives with as much happiness
as possible while avoiding pain whenever we can. Peter Singer, a lifetime philosopher and advocate
of animal rights, states that animals are sentient beings as well (Singer 33). This means that animals
have the same interests in living a life of happiness and void of pain, just as humans do. Assuming
Singer's statement to be true, we can now state that animals feel happiness and pain, just as humans
do.
Now that we know that animals feel happiness and pain, we will show that humans should not put
animals through unnecessary pain. One of the hallmarks of human rights is that one human should
never harm another. When this right is

Essay On Animal Rights
Jazmin Lopez
Advanced composition
Mrs.Nellon
2 October, 2017
The Fight for Animal Rights There is a problem that plagues America, a problem which you are the
judge, in which you decide whether to give the helpless victims a life or pain and misery or provide
them with a long happy life. This problem is animal cruelty. Animal cruelty as many of us know is
the mistreatment of the animals, and can also be categorized as animal abuse or animal neglect. But
what most of us don't know is just how common animal cruelty takes place and affects our life,
what the animals need to endure to bring us our daily necessities and how we can help put an end
to this atrocity. So it is time that we wake up and get informed of all the problems that lurk in...show
more content...
There are many different topics that come to mind when discussing animal cruelty but as far right
now we will go a bit into depth about the controversy over animal testing. The first thing that come
to mind when the word animal testing is spoken is a cute fluffy animal being subjected to
experimentation by brooding people in white lab coats which to some extent isn't necessarily
wrong, but it isn't as black and white as we may all picture it to be, but even if that were true it
doesn't validate animal testing in the slightest. Unaware animals should not have to face being
uncomfortable and in any form of pain for the benefit of us advancing as a society. And for those
of you who still might not see the injustice that lies within animal testing, it might help if i provide
you with an example, so imagine a small helpless child that can't speak and then imagine a much
larger child, who can easily overpower the smaller child. Just because the larger child, or us as
humans have the power to overpower the smaller child, or in this case animals, doesn't mean that
we should do it. And to many of us it would seem inhumane if the larger child forced the smaller
child to go through certain procedures that the smaller child wasn't comfortable, but since the
smaller child isn't able to relay how he is feeling nobody bats an eye. And the same thing applies to
use and animals. There should be no reason that we

Essay on Zoos and Animal Rights
Among many other fun and exciting attraction to visit around our community, a visit to the zoo has
always been a memorable experience. This cost effective priceless lifetime experience is being
undermined by a group of activists all around the country. People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA), world largest animal rights organization, argue that zoos deprived animals from
satisfying their most basic needs. They urge not to patronized zoos and claims that the money spent
on ticket purchases pays for animals to be imprisoned and traded, not rescued and rehabilitated. They
go on saying in summary that zoos strip animals from their rights. So this heated debate revolves
around the animal rights and how the zoo industry inhibits it....show more content...
Fifty–four percent of the individuals surveyed offered comments about the elevated awareness of
their role in conservation as a direct consequence of their visit to the zoo. Furthermore, sixty one
percent of visitors were able to talk about what they learned from their previous visit, and thirty five
percent reported that the visit reinforced their existing beliefs about conservation, stewardship and
love of animals in different surveys. As news writer Amy miller (2014) states zoos are working
harder than ever to save endangered animals around the world. She explained that the Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS), which is headquartered at the Bronx Zoo in New York City, is
working with local officials in Malaysia to stop people from hunting exotic birds to sell their
feathers. Furthermore, The California zoo is famous for its work helping to save China's giant panda.
Three panda cubs have been born at the zoo already. The San Diego Zoo now has the largest
population of giant pandas outside mainland China.
In addition to promoting conservation many modern zoo encourage research. Studies and research
have to be done in order to contribute to the preservation of endangered species. The San Diego zoo
for instance just opened the Conservation and Research for Endangered Species Center. The $22
million center gives scientists cutting–edge instruments and plenty of room to do their work as
mentioned by Amy (2014). Farmers in Africa think the spotted cheetah is an

Essay about Animal Rights
The issue of animal experimentation is a widely debated topic in the United States. A fundamental
question of this debate is whether the functions of animal testing and research are morally and
ethically justified. In the viewpoint of the pro–research community, animal testing is a necessary
practice. They support this position by stating that humans, instinctually, prioritize their own survival
above other animals thus making any use of animals justifiable (Fox 5). The supporters of animal
testing believe that it is illogical for humans to place anthropocentric values in animals citing that
they can not be moral equals to mankind (Fox 3, 6). The animal rights faction holds belief in
different viewpoints against the testing of animals in...show more content...
In today's scientific age, animals are frequently used as a subject of countless experiments.
These experiments are used to test the effects of man's diseases, medicines, and products on animals
in laboratory to enhance human's knowledge of their own physical and physiological workings. To
the animal researcher, this is a necessary function of species survival. Another discussion stated by
the pro–research community is the question of morality in animals. It is their view since animals
could not, in any capacity, function in a society of autonomous beings (Fox 58). For example, a dog
(which is considered an intelligent creature) may understand that certain behaviors may warrant a
reward and that some actions will deliver a punishment upon themselves. Its master, in most cases,
engrained this mode of logic into the dog through training and conditioning.
This is true of most intelligent species, including humans. In contrast, it is the view of the animal
researcher that, unlike humans, animals do not have the cognitive ability to make moral judgments.
The dog knows not why it is morally right or wrong that its action deserved a response from its
master. The animal does not make a moral distinction of being free or bound to man– it is
conditioned to behave in response to stimuli it encounters (Fox 57–59). In the eyes of the researcher,
animal experimentation is justified by the

Essay on Animal Rights
Animal Rights
The 20th century has had more medical breakthroughs than any other hundred years in history. But
there is a price. No significant discovery in this time has occurred without the use of animals in
biological research experiments. Heart surgery, polio, osteoporosis, diabetes, AIDS, and cancer have
all had significant breakthroughs thanks to these experiments(McCarty 15).
The use of animals in today's world is highly controversial. Our society eats animals and their
products, wears them, uses them for entertainment, and kills some species, such as rats and mice for
being a nuisance. In a society which uses animals in all these different ways, it is ethical to use
animals in medical research. Many medical advances rely...show more content...
Even though the direct cost of the animals is small, around 20% of all projects will involve an
element of animal studies in amongst the other research techniques. When animals are used in
research there are strict regulations to ensure a minimum of pain and suffering for the
subjects(UNMC). Ultimately our overall understanding of diseases rests heavily upon studies of
living systems, including animals. In the fight to save human lives, animals are vital.
The Hot Zone reveals that animal research inadvertently led to an outbreak of Ebola near
Washington DC. But this is a unique case where research has harmed humankind. The U.S. has
recognized the importance of animal research and were it not for the Animals (Scientific) Research
Act of 1986 most scientists would have been charged with cruelty to animals by now. Because of
these laws new drugs are tested on approximately 1,000 animals before they can be released on the
market(McCarty 81). This law would not exist if government officials thought these experiments
would harm their citizens. In fact due to animal research the human life–span has been increased by
an average of 28 years(McCarty 15).
Though animal research has benefited millions of people world–wide it has its detractors.
Hollywood celebrities are using their free time to pose naked for billboards. To protest the use of
animals in their make up and garment's

Argumentative Essay On Animal Rights
Animal rights has always been conversional subject, what rights do they have, what type of treatment
they may endure, and what is wildlife versus what are pets. Society as it a whole as always had used
animals as form entertainment for example like zoos, circuses, aquariums, rodeos, animal fighting
and hunting. Though these types of entertainments project as innocent forms of fun for all ages
when it's enslavement for the animals. These animals are taken from their homes to be forced
behind cages, glass and concert walls to perform for the paying customer. The animals see millions
of human faces pressed against these walls staring in hoping to see them do tricks or just move in
general. These animals are also forced to perform and train for hours on in just to be a meal ticket
for the right buyer.
The advertisement above illustrates how animals are used like puppets for entertainment. When you
think of puppets, you think of a puppet master pulling the strings, to make the puppet dance, sing
and entertain you. Now just picture a wild animal having invisible strings attached to them with a
puppet master giving orders. Instead of strings they use actual force and punishment to get what they
want. While in the picture it states, "The show must go on", when you hear this phrase you know
meaning that regardless of what happens, whatever show has been planned still must be performed
for the paying guests, the same goes for animals too. Which suggest no matter how much force, pain

Argument For Animal Rights
In the nutshell, it is fairly known that in humanity the most important role has been played by
animals since last many eras. Animals have been kept as pets by humans for many years. Although,
in last few years, issues regarding care and protection of animals has taken wide attention from
media. With reference to the animal rights framework developed by Tom Regan, it can be firmly
argued that animals also have the rights to choose what is right for themselves. It is suggested that
pets should not be used as an object for food, comfort, clothing or researching purpose as they are
moral creatures with having sentiments and feelings to be regarded appropriately. There are few
drawbacks of owning pets, however, comparatively more numbers of advantages

Essay on Animal Rights
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.
A well known scientist named Neal D. Barnard...show more content...
The stress of handling, confinement and isolation alters the animal's mental stability and introduces
yet another experimental variable that makes any results from testing even less valuable to human
helping. In many cases, drugs and other substances are given to the test animals but studies have
shown considerable differences in the effects of these drugs on different species.
David Salsburg of Pfizer Central Research has noted that of 19 chemicals known to cause cancer in
humans when ingested, only seven caused cancer in mice and rats using the standards set by the
National Cancer Institute. This justifies that many substances that appeared safe in animal studies
and received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in humans later proved
dangerous to people. The drug milrinone, which raises cardiac output, increased survival of rats
with artificially induced heart failure; humans with severe chronic heart failure taking this drug had
a 30 percent increase in fatalities. Also, the antiviral drug fialuridine seemed safe in animal trials yet
caused liver failure in seven of 15 humans taking the drug (five of these patients died as a result of
the medication, and the other two received liver transplants). Scientists and the populous that do not
agree with

2015
Animal rights
Introduction
In ancient years, philosophers had a lot to say about how humans treat animals. However, experts in
social sciences have taken part in issues concerning humans and other animals. Every year,
thousands of animals are in a tormented, and then died during the animal experiments. Another fact
is from Vivisection Information Network, there is a rough estimate from the European Union that
10.5 million vertebrate animals were used in animal experiments, which is 28,800 per day or one
every three seconds. Around 18.5 million animals were used in the USA per year (Updated, 2013).
And also the evidence in the emerging field of Human–Animal study, (HAS), shows that animal
protection is not taken seriously. A review of Marxist realism, feminism, ecofeminism, social
constructionist theorists and approaches that shows the human–animal study is highly concerned.
Animal protection movement involves animal welfare, animal liberation, and animal rights. Our
focus on this argument will be on animal rights....show more content...
This is incorrect because animals have feelings, and some have a measure of speech. In addition,
some take care of their young ones and protect each other. This proves that similar to humans animals
also have feelings, desires and emotions, and, therefore, deserve to have rights. According to Rene
Descartes, every being that has a mind deserves to be treated fairly because it shows that the animal
has the ability to think rationally. Charles Darwin, who came up with the theory of existence through
evolution, came up with a hypothesis that shows a correlation between humans and nonhuman
beings. In his hypothesis, he concluded that animals have emotions and feelings that have evolved
the same way as humans' emotions (Francione & Garner,

When it comes to the rights of animals it can be very controversial. On one hand people see animal
rights as ridiculous and unnecessary. And on the other there are many people that take animal rights
extremely seriously and some even go as far as to think that they should have the same rights as
humans. While I can view this from both sides I stand somewhere in the middle, because I don't
think animals should have the same right as humans, but I do think that they should have some rights
. While some people may think that animals should have full human rights because they have human
emotions. I believe that they shouldn't have full human rights but, they should have some rights.
Despite the common belief that, "Other animals have no sense of morality and are unable to
comprehend the concept of their own death. (Rifkin 11)" I don't exactly agree with that statement.
Because as Rifkin later stated, "Animals, it appears, experience grief. Elephants will often stand
next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks. (Rifkin 11)"
This fact contradicts the previous common assumption that animals have no sense of morality. This
shows that animals are in fact able to feel empathy and sadness for their loss. So it could be a
justified assumption that animals could feel human emotions. Now that you have some knowledge
of the emotions and feelings of animals, you can start to form a base for your opinion. But to go any
further you need to think

Essay on AnimalsвЂ™ Rights?
Animals' Rights?
Animals flock about nature going on with their daily lives eating, mating, playing, and hiding.
"Hiding from what?" someone might ask. They are hiding from the predators that roam the earth as
if it is only theirs to move about freely without respecting the other inhabitants of the earth. These
predators are known as humans. Many of these predators have taken the lives of many animals
selfishly and disrespectfully. Some animal species have been killed by the hundreds each year,
many times for the purpose of putting money in the pocket of the killers. Some animals have been
wounded and not retrieved and therefore left to die in agony. This must stop and there are some
reasons why.
If all of the animals were gone, then...show more content...
I say that it is human instinct that creates a need for hunting. Acting on the instinct is what needs to
be controlled. Hunting for food is a good way to deal with this human instinct, but for the fun, for
the game, this needs to be suppressed. Do we, as humans, need to kill that deer for its enormous
antlers? A "trophy buck" as one hunter might joyfully scream. The fun and excitement of having a
deer head on the wall overcomes many humans. Instinct has taken humans too far. What was once a
tool used for gathering food is now used as a type of hobby or leisure time activity. Animals have
contributed their bodies for food and shelter in the past and continue to do so in some countries
today. The thrill of killing animals for enjoyment influences the minds of many humans. These
animals were meant to help keep mankind afloat. Some people do not see this as a problem. If
the trend of killing for the fun, a game some say, continues will there been any animals left? Of
course there will. The people who have sincere feeling about the animals have fought for laws that
set limits to protect animals from becoming wiped out. These limits deal with the number of a
species that can be killed by a hunter, how he can kill the animal, and what he can do with it once
the animal has been slain. But can hunting in excess correct as long as we replenish what has been
taken? I think it is and by developing these laws

My Views on Animal Rights
During this course many of the topics discussed I found interesting. Of the many, the topic that I
found most interesting is about animal rights. I want to further express my view on this topic. I
believe animals do not have rights and people only give animals rights because people believe
animals have souls. I have come to this conclusion due to further reading and personal experience.
Animals do not have rights because animals do not have voices. If animals had voices they would
be considered human beings, which of course, they are not. Animals are actually sub–creatures of the
world. My stance on this is derived from the fact that animals are treated just as such of what they
are; animals. Animals are designed to accommodate human...show more content...
Humans see animals as innocent and not an enemy in nature. We humans have the same instinct the
only difference is we are more evolved than that of an animal. If you place a human in the desert
they will do the only thing they know how, survive. The first thing a person will do is find an
animal and eat it.
The biological make up of a large percentage of mammals are carnivores or omnivores, which sum
up to the fact that they eat meat. For most humans eating meat is a primary part of their
nourishment and meat comes from animals. To acquire meat a human can only get it from an
animals and animals can only acquire meat from other animals or humans, therefore eating meat
is apart of the circle of life. In the circle of life everything eats and everything is eaten whether
humans join in the circle or not. Animals will eat other animals as well as humans for meat
regardless if a human will eat them or not. It is in our instinct to eat meat, more so in animals than
humans. Animals are born into this world to serves us as food. Humans have just the right to eat
meat just as much as a lion or wolf. A vegetarian argument would be that since humans are evolved
we should be more compassionate towards animals because it is their instinct to behave in such
way. Just because we are evolved does not stop the animal from thinking that we are food to them.
Eating meat is natural, normal, and necessary. Some people become sick from being strictly

Argument for Animal Rights Essay
Argument for Animal Rights
The argument for animal rights assumes that animals posses their own lives and deserve to be
assigned rights in order to protect their wellbeing. This view insists that animals are not merely
goods utilised only to benefit mankind and they should be allowed to choose how they want to live
their lives, free from the constraints of man. But if animals are given absolute rights, then surely
they shouldn't be allowed to kill each other, as this would be a violation of these rights. Should
murderous animals be administered prison sentences or even...capital punishment?
One method of preventing animals killing each other would be to provide animals with a vegetarian
...show more content...
This is ironic because we are moral beings and can think about our actions, yet we kill and mistreat
animals as they are lesser beings and can't think about their actions. However, before we can answer
the question of whether or not animals have the right to kill each other, we must ask whether or not
they even have rights.
It can be argued that, as greater beings, we should take responsibility for the wellbeing of those
species that are less developed than us, rather than using our power to manipulate and exploit them.
According to Rawls's contractualism, animals are not rational agents and humans are. This implies
that, as humans are the ones who have created the concept of rights, they should only apply to
humans. However, Peter Carruthers extends this theory so that it defends the rights of animals. He
suggests that a rational agent could enter into a contract for an animal, representing their interests in
'the formulation of the basic contract'. There are also some human beings who cannot speak for
themselves or question their actions, for example, fetuses, infants, the comatose, the senile and the
severely retarded. These people are still assigned rights despite the fact that they are not moral
agents. They may make the same simple instinctive decisions as animals, yet are given rights based
upon their species. It can be

Animal Rights And Human Rights
Animal Rights "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. Some of us have animals as pets, for competitions, for our jobs, and
some to survive. Much like tasking asked of humans in day to day life. Those of us who have
pets, see them as a part of the family, making us believe they are no different than a child we gave
birth to. When we bring home our new born children, we love them, nurture them, and teach them as
they grow to be adults. What happens to most families when they bring home their sweet little
puppies, kittens, or other baby animal of our choosing? I would imagine that the goal is to raise
them to adapt to their new family. This is no different than that of a small child. Looking at a
behavioral stand point and comparing household pets to human beings, the reactions are very
similar. When children are physically and mentally abused on a regular basis, the smallest act may
have a similar reaction as that of a

Persuasive Speech On Animal Rights
Do animals have the right to a certain quality of life? How would your views change if our cooks
got treated the same way cattle and poultry do? How would you feel about them being beaten and
brought to their knees just to be detained to know how to cook todays specials? You might think
that the food industry has no issues and no faults behind their tasty food, but when you open up the
meat curtain, there is a different kind of world out there that is cruel and inhumane. In Robert
Kenner's 2008 film, Food, Inc., He shows the conditions that cows, chickens, and pigs have to live
in. The dark and closeted homes in which the animals are closely compacted together and eating,
sleeping, and walking in their own manure. As a person who would consider themselves an animal
rights activist, most people would agree that the food industry treats their animals like products
instead of living things. Let's take chicken farming as an example. Chickens are injected with
growth hormones to make their breasts bigger for human consumption. The film showed
chickens that were abnormally large. These modified chickens can only walk a few steps before
having to sit back down because they can't carry their own weight for too long. Some farmers will
recycle the dead carcasses of the animals into the feed for herbivores on the farm. So plant eating
animals will be eating the meat of a dead carcass. Animals could get sick or contract a disease from
the dead animals. This infection would soon get

Essay on ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animals have their own rights as do to humans and we should respect that and give them the same
respect we give each other. Animals deserve to be given those same basic rights as humans. All
humans are considered equal and ethical principles and legal statutes should protect the rights of
animals to live according to their own nature and remain free from exploitation. This paper is going
to argue that animals deserve to have the same rights as humans and therefore, we don't have the
right to kill or harm them in any way. The premises are the following: animals are living things thus
they are valuable sentient beings, animals have feeling just like humans, and animals feel pain
therefore animal suffering is wrong. 2 sources I will be using...show more content...
Singer wants to show that everyone's interest or good counts for one (Singer 8). Singer deals with
the question of suffering as his main point since his goal is to show that rights are based on the
capacity for suffering. He supports with some fundamental facts that these animals have nervous
systems just like ours, which "respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in
circumstances in which we would feel pain" (11). Singer's arguments can be supported by Jeremy
Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, who incorporated the
essential basis of moral equality into his system of ethics by mean of the formula: "Each to count for
one and none for more than one." In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action
are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being
(Singer 5). Singer argues that we do not have good legal reasons, scientific or philosophical, for
denying that animals feel pain. Therefore, he deems that "if we do not doubt that other humans feel
pain we should not doubt that other animals do so too" (15). He proves that animals can undergo
pain and that there can be "no moral justification for regarding the pain (or pleasure) that animals
feel as less importance than the same amount of pain felt by humans" (15). This portrays the rights
and equality the animals may possess comparison to

Essay On Animal Rights

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Paper Writing Service Cheap

More from Paper Writing Service Cheap (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Essay On Animal Rights