...Nowadays, animals are in danger of dying out, at least one million animal species have already disappeared since 1980. Worse still, as the using of hunting, laboratories, and commercial getting common, the number of animal species decreases faster and faster, and this phenomenon will continue if no one come out and speak up for the animals. Today, animal right is a highly contentious issue. Do animals have rights? Philosophers have different standpoints. In “The Case for Animals Rights” which is written by Tom Regan, Regan states that animals should have fundamental rights as humans, and also be protected from the unnecessary harm. In addition, in Peter Singer’s article “All Animals Are Equal”, he has the same standpoint as Regan that animals should have the same principles that human received. In contrast, in the article “The Case of the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research” by Carl Cohen, he supports Regan in his moral theory, however, he argues that animals should not have rights, and he also points out that the using of animals in medical research is important. “The Case for Animal Rights”, “All Animals are Equal” and “The Case of the use of Animals in Biomedical Research” let us know that although hurting animals is not unlawful, it’s morally wrong; for the purpose of protecting animals, people must change their beliefs. In Regan’s article, he supports that animals are equal to humans, and should have the same rights as humans. Although animals and us born in different...
Words: 986 - Pages: 4
...beautiful. However what makes it special is the amount of deer. Hunting is not allowed and these animals manipulated very fast. The problem is how to control the deer population. Singer would want the best for the most amount of people; in this case “the people” are deer. Tom Regan may say that the animals have the same rights as humans. Either way the situation needs to be handled with respect to Singer’s and Regan’s views. Regan calls animals “subjects-of-a-life”. He also uses the same terminology for humans. Regan believes animals should have the same moral rights as humans. He believes an infant or a mentally retarded man should be treated the same as a normal person. However the death of an animal may not be as important to the death of a human being because fewer opportunities are lost. He looks at what a person could accomplish in his lifetime and compares it to what an animal could accomplish and the human overrules. These views can be challenged in the Quabbin reserve. We simply cannot kill the deer because they have rights. However the death of a deer is not equivalent to the death of a human. But I cannot justify killing hundreds of deer with Regan’s view. The deer are not harming us so it would be immoral to kill them. On the other side Peter Singer’s views differ a little bit. Going of the basic utilitarian idea "the greatest good of the greatest number" he wants animals to be included in this. Anyone who didn’t support this idea would be classified as a “Speciest”...
Words: 534 - Pages: 3
...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...
Words: 1107 - Pages: 5
...Animals used to have a life worth living, however it is not true anymore; under ill treatment and unjust views, animals are nothing more than tools for the benefit of our society. In this paper, I will analyze Regan’s work on ‘The Case for Animal Rights’ and focus on how it approaches the deontological view of Kant, duty. First, Tom Regan, Professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University believes there is flaw in our treatment of animals and that it “is wrong because we violate the rights of animals.” (Regan) Factory farming is an example of how animals are just mere existence of our resources. Regan’s goals on animals rights include banning the use of animal in science, factory farming, commercial and sport industry. Basically,...
Words: 818 - Pages: 4
...federal laws that regulates de liability of the owners of an animal, punishes abuse or protects the integrity of domestic animals, all that has been created so far are measures in the penal code of different states that aren’t very useful due to the unnecessary complexity in the structure of the law that result in judges not understanding them, forgetting their existence of the law or simply decide to ignore them. That’s why the government should decree laws at federal level that protect animals against mistreatment, grant them safety, dignity and a rightful treatment. According to the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), there are 3 million dogs in Estado de Mexico; 1 dog per 5 people. The terrifying data comes from the Adoption Center and Animal Rescue AC: there’s an estimate that 7 out of 10 dogs are victims of abuse and neglect. When they talk about abuse and neglect it does not only relate to dogs on the street, it is also consider those with home. Every year a million pets (dogs and cats) suffer from mistreatment. Statistics from an animal protection organization called Milagros Caninos located in Mexico City shows that a hundred percent of the dogs they’ve given shelter to, suffered from mistreat, torture, rape and vexation. In the last decades, sociocultural factors have increased the interest at correcting this unnecessary harm to animals; citizen initiatives (partnerships and animal shelters, collecting signatures, demonstrations) and academic...
Words: 1786 - Pages: 8
...Answer: | x | That if we say that it would be wrong to perform experiments on such humans but not on non-humans then we are showing bias based upon species alone | | | | That a good speciesist would not perform experiments on any being | | | | That we should test upon mentally disabled human infants because the results would be more reliable than tests on animals | | | | That anyone who would consider testing on a human infant is a monster | | Instructor Explanation: | The answer can be found on p. 6 of Peter Singer’s “All Animals are Equal.” | | | | Points Received: | 1 of 1 | | Comments: | | | | Question 2. | Question : | Peter Singer’s “basic principles of equality” applied to animals means: | | | Student Answer: | | Animals should be given all the same rights as human beings. | | | x | Animals are not entitled to not all the same rights but to an equal consideration of interests. | | | | Animals should not be given the same moral consideration because they are do not have the same power to reason as humans. | | | | Animals do not have rights unless they can demonstrate the same abilities as humans. | | Instructor Explanation: | The answer can...
Words: 1923 - Pages: 8
...102 5 November 2014 Animals and the Exemption of Their Rights Almost every American grew up eating some kind of meat or wearing some type of fur, leather, or wool, we grow up going to zoos and circuses, and some people even have pets like birds and rabbits at home in cages. We unknowingly exploit animals in every way possible. The impact that our actions have on these animals is never taken into consideration. Due to animals serving us humans several different purposes, the animal is forgotten. The idea of whether animals should have rights is at a peak in controversy. Animal rights activist believe animals have legal and moral rights the same way humans do. On the other hand there are several corporations...
Words: 1138 - Pages: 5
...Reasoning Instructor Galen Johnson June 23, 2014 \ Animals: Deserving of Utilitarianism? 1 Utilitarianism is best defined as given a choice between two acts, the one that creates greater happiness for the greatest number of people should be chosen. This should be applied to non-human beings as well. Animals are essential in our everyday lives. They provide companionship, nourishment for our bodies and can provide amazement to our eyes when seen in their natural habitat. They are important in human life. They deserve respect. We as the superior being should make decisions for non-humans based on the utilitarianism approach creating greater happiness or good for the greater numbers. Our decisions based on this approach when making choices where non-humans are concerned will be a beneficial choice for both humans and animals. So what do humans and animals have in common? René Descartes, for instance, regarded animals as simply “physical bodies that lacked minds or souls; thus, animals were similar to organic machines.” (Mosser, 2013) This type of thought is also coincides with Western and Christian thinking. That is, all is ranked from highest to lowest. God and Angels are the highest with humans, animals and plants to follow in order. Present day this is conflicting...
Words: 1253 - Pages: 6
...itself shocking, as Lear forces his daughters to declare their love for him. The one who loves him the most will receive the largest part of his kingdom, which he intends to divide between the three. Lear himself wishes to hand over the ruling of the kingdom to his daughters, while retaining the ‘Pre-eminence, and all the large effects / That troop with majesty’ (Scene 1, Lines 131-2). Goneril and Regan acquit themselves well at this love test. Cordelia, however, dismayed by her sisters’ ponderous words, refuses to take part in the ‘contest’ and tells Lear that she loves him as her duty instructs her. When Cordelia refuses to speak again, Lear casts her off without a moment’s hesitation. Ken attempts to argue with the King, accusing him of ‘hideous rashness’ (Scene 1, Line 151). When Kent further warns Lear that his elder daughters are false flatterers, Kent too is banished. Lear invests Albany and Cornwall with power, and, after Burgundy refuses to take Cordelia as his wife, now that she is without dowry, France takes her for her virtues alone. Goneril and Regan complain, in private, about Lear’s harsh judgement and unpredictable behaviour and worry that they too may be treated unfairly. Edmund, Gloucester’s bastard son, soliloquises about his own situation, revealing his devious intentions towards his brother. When his father enters, Edmund’s trickery with a letter, supposedly written by Edgar, sets Gloucester against his legitimate son. Edmund further warns...
Words: 27223 - Pages: 109
...the world, animals have played a huge role in human society and have suffered greatly at the hands of humans whether it was for experimental, domestic, medical, or fashion purposes. The notion of animal rights has become a foreign concept to many people as more and more animals are abused and killed each day for a wide range of socially acceptable purposes. However, animals deserve the right to live free from unnecessary pain or suffering because they are conscious and sentient beings that have intrinsic value. Therefore, measures should be taken to regulate the treatment of animals in order to recognize their rights, to favor animal welfare, and to diminish the amount of suffering they have to endure. Although humans have the right to use animals for their use and benefit, humans also have a moral obligation to recognize animal rights and to treat all living...
Words: 1131 - Pages: 5
...Animal testing is the use of non-human animals for experimentation. There are studies that show that it is estimated that between 100 – 150 million vertebrate animals, including mice, rats, birds, fish, rabbits, guinea pigs, farm animals, dogs, cats and non-human primates, are used in animal testing worldwide. This large number does not even include the millions of vertebrates in the United States that are excluded from the Animal Welfare and thus not required to be reported. Animals are tested for the safety, and efficacy, of products to humans. In fact, both the EPA and the FDA use animal testing for the marketing of industrial chemicals, vaccines and medication. This is unethical for many reasons, most animals have a biology that is different from humans, so most animals make unreliable test subjects. Also, there are better testing ways that end with knowing how the human body will react....
Words: 1322 - Pages: 6
...Animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests—such as the need to avoid suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.[2] Advocates oppose the assignment of moral value and fundamental protections on the basis of species membership alone—an idea known since 1970 as speciesism, when the term was coined by Richard D. Ryder—arguing that it is a prejudice as irrational as any other.[3] They maintain that animals should no longer be viewed as property or used as food, clothing, research subjects, entertainment, or beasts of burden.[4] Advocates approach the issue from a variety of perspectives. The abolitionist view is that animals have moral rights, which the pursuit of incremental reform may undermine by encouraging human beings to feel comfortable with using them. Gary Francione's abolitionist position promotes ethical veganism. He argues that animal rights groups that pursue welfare concerns, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), risk making the public feel comfortable about its use of animals. He calls such groups "the new welfarists." PETA argues that Francione's criticism does little to help alleviate the suffering of individual animals and also trivializes the efforts of workers in the field who handle cruelty cases. It also creates divisiveness within the animal liberation movement instead of focusing on...
Words: 679 - Pages: 3
...Animal Testing According to Utilitarianism, Animal testing is morally good because it brings about great utility. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments. As a consequence of the polio vaccine, tested on animals, it reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. Around 2.5 million women walk on the breast for cancer survivor walkathon with great happiness. Happiness is increased because all those family members who had to see suffering: a mom go through chemotherapy, a son who has no energy left after dialysis to be a kid, a husband who has to see his wife work double shift to pay for his medication, now can be at peace as a consequence of animal testing. The annual income of an American is about $24,062; multiply it by how many people benefit from a vaccine dealing life or death and it is a very big net gain for the country. The numbers of animals tested does not surpass the life long pleasure it brings to people’s lives. Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. Animal testing produces a greater outcome for many by great advancement in technology. Animals themselves benefit from the goodness of animal testing because vaccines are used to heal them too. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper...
Words: 785 - Pages: 4
...2010 Cruelty towards Animals and Their Rights If killing animals was entertaining to the people by abusing them and possibly causing them to fight, would you join the cruel humans that are doing this just to have fun watching animals fight and be abused? Animal cruelty comes in different ways from animal abuse, fighting the animals, and even mistreating them. Cruelty to animals is growing all over the United States even out of the US, especially dog fighting and cock fighting has grown dramatically. Animals used for other purposes are being abused more. The poor animals feel pain and suffer every time they are killed or mistreated. Even though my own father commits animal cruelty, still does not change the way I feel towards animal cruelty. My father thinks it is not bad to fight roosters, but I always tell him that fighting them is very cruel to the rooster. Two main animals used for fighting are roosters and dogs. They are trained and forced to fight each other to death, which cock fighters find interesting and gamble their money. Animal Rights and Human Obligations Second Edition, Ed. by Tom Regan and Peter singer, specifies the rights of animals, treatment of animals, killing and value of life of animals, etc. It has various authors on each specific topic that makes it more interesting. I argue that animals should be given their rights and not be tortured by humans for no apparent reason, and those committing...
Words: 2878 - Pages: 12
...Animal Equality: Effects of Giving Animals Rights PHI 103 Informal Logic June 2, 2014 Argument When it comes to animal equality it can be hard to imagine a dog, cat, or even a hamster of having equivalence. When I think of animals, I picture our pets, wild animals, and even those in which are consumed. The question of what is and what is not ethically appropriate in the treatment of animals has is debatable. Peter Singer’s provides a utilitarian arguments for why animals with a certain level of perceptive justify equal moral attention with humans. Introduction Singer calls for the establishment of a “liberation movement” comparable to those that remained emerging up throughout the dated in which he wrote his essay and attentive on such problems as gay, women’s and African-American rights. Noting how previously “legitimate” forms of judgment and prejudice, over time, correctly came to be observed as unfairly and immorally damaging towards definite classes of people, Singer argues that the time has come for a similar pledge to the rights of species that walk on four legs instead of two. The animal liberation movement, which was essentially begun by Singer’s book, Slate.com (2001) argues “It is ethically wrong to use animals in such a way that we cause them suffering, either by deprivation of essential components of a happy existence, or by causing them pain.” (Slate.com, 2001) The animal liberationists would like to disallow most medical experimentation using animal...
Words: 1424 - Pages: 6
