I will argue that the rights of humans supersede the rights of animals for the benefit of man and animals themselves. It is my belief that by granting animals to many rights we would not only be putting human lives in jeopardy but we would also be doing harm to the animals themselves. The way by which we can help animals in the most humane way is to have obligations towards them which is not the same as granting them rights. In this essay I will present the arguments of writers, thinkers and philosophers to give the reader background and knowledge on many of the topics and ideas I will be speaking about. In addition I will provide real life examples of why granting animals too many rights is harmful to both animals and humans. To do this I will first go over and analyze the arguments laid out by Carl Cohen who is opposed to animal rights. I will then discuss the arguments presented by Tom Regan. After this I will present my own opinion based on their arguments and the writings of others.
Animal rights is the idea that some or all nonhuman animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests – such as an interest in not suffering – should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Advocatess, such as Peter Singer oppose the assignment of moral value and fundamental protections on the basis of species membership alone – an idea known as speciesism. Peter singer argues that speciesism is a prejudice similar to racism or sexism, in that the treatment of individuals is predicated on group membership and morally irrelevant physical differences. The argument is that species membership has no moral significance.[2]
Tom Regan In The Case for Animal Rights, argues that non-human animals bear moral rights. Regan points out that we routinely ascribe inherent value, and thus the right to be treated