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 good utilized 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 environment which caters for their every need. However, in this fictional vegetarian world wouldn’t the rights of the animal be suppressed as it is being held in captivity against its will? From an evolutionary point of view it is the natural right of a stronger animal to devour a weaker one. If this is acceptable then surely it is acceptable for us to eat meat too, as we humans are more evolved than the creatures we eat. But this argument implies that if you have physical power over someone or something then you should be allowed to do what you want. If this was the case, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to torture an infant, purely because I have the physical capacity to do so and if an alien race should happen to invade Earth with the intention and power to kill and eat us, they should also be allowed to do so. Being human beings, we have the ability to reflect upon that which we have done which is the main reason we choose not to attack those less powerful than us. Animals on the other hand cannot think about their actions in great depth and rely upon instinct to direct them. This is ironic because we are moral beings and can think about our actions, yet we kill and mistreat