The Ethics Of Animal And Animal Rights

Drawing on animal rights claims, the questionable moral status of animals and the land ethic, this essay seeks to argue that zoos; a place in which wild animal’s are held in captivity, are inherently unethical, because they violate the ethical and moral standard in which animals have a claim to. Citing experts in the animal ethics field, this essay will be supported by firstly establishing that animals do in fact have “animal rights” and similarly, that they have a claim to a moral status relative to that of humans. Following this, this essay will show that the animal rights, which zoo animals are privy to, allows us to set an ethical standard on which humans have a duty to treat animals, especially when held in captivity. Analyzing this ethical standard with which me must treat zoo animals, we can deduce that zoos are in fact not ethical in nature and in practice.

Non-human animals should have the same rights that humans have such as not being used as food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation.

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”.

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

“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.

“Hormone-free”, “organic”, “grass-fed”, and “natural” are labels that animal and plant producers use to inform consumers of what they are eating. These claims are misleading and usually increase the prices of those products. By increasing the price and sticking a label that reads “natural” makes consumers think that this product is better for them. Animal Welfare Approved gives an example of an egg carton boasting the statement that its eggs are “natural.” This statement can legally come from an industrial farm where the hens do not forage the way a chicken does “naturally.” According to the USDA, farms have to get organic certifications and accreditations in order to sell, label, and represent their products as organic. It is difficult to

Weak Animal Rights theory primary concepts (1) that not all non-human animals have rights, only those that have sentient (2) the rights of sentient animals are not as strong as those of humans; humans have rights to the fullest, strongest sense. In this paper, I will criticize Mary Warren’s description for “weak animal rights” and her argument in support of it. Then, I will propose the objection to Warren’s theory, that by using sentient as the distinguishing characteristic promotes poor environmental policy.

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

Animal rights is the philosophy or idea that all animals should be able to live a life free from human exploitation pain and suffering. According to Gale ” The idea of animal rights has roots in ancient times. In Greek philosophy, the animists believed that both animals and people had souls. The vitalists believed that humans were animals but at the top of the chain and could use animals for their benefit.” ( Animals Rights, par.2). In the early twentieth century in the United States, there was no law that regards to animal experimentation. In 1937 there was a pharmaceutical company that developed medicine called Elixir Sulfanilamide. When the medicine was released the company was unaware that the substance was harmful because the drug

Imagine being burned by a product without any expectation of the outcome being harmful. Reminisce on the time an abrupt injury occurred when it was not deserved. Visualize a shorter life expectancy because being added to a risky experiment was more vital than living. With all being said, I know I have made my point clear. What is in it for them? By “them,” I mean the innocent animals of the world being harmed and killed because of vivisection. “Animals have an intrinsic value separate from any value they have to humans and are worthy of moral consideration. They have a right to be free from oppression, confinement, use and abuse by humans” (“Basic Tenets of Animal Rights” 1). Animals have a right to be free of pain; therefore, changes need to be made to end undeserved suffering.

For many years now the world has seen controversy over the rights of animals and if they think and feel like humans do. Many people see animals as mindless creatures or as food, while others think they have emotions and can feel pain. In other countries animal protection laws are in place that are strictly enforced and seem to work well with the system. In the United States however; some of the animal rights laws are considered to be useless and under-enforced (Animal Legal & Historical Center). More people today are beginning to see that animals should have rights and should be protected by laws and regulations (Animal Legal & Historical Center). Sadly there are many people residing in the United States who don’t take animal rights or protection laws seriously. These people abuse animals in many ways, including food industries that disobey the regulations set in place for the slaughter of animals used for consumption. Luckily for the animals there are people who fight for their rights and the enforcement of laws called animal rights activists.

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

Lets talk about animal ethics. As far as I can remember animal have always been test subjects. Is it always ethical to use animals? Is this considering animal cruelty? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. I personally think that they wouldn’t be any protest about using animals as test subjects if they started using humans for experimental projects. There probably wouldn’t be having theses discussions in an ethical class.

George Bernard Shaw once said, “ the worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that’s the essence of inhumanity.” The issue of giving animals rights has dated back to the ancient Greek in Romans. They believed that people who died who be reborn in a new life as an animal. This issue has date since sixth century B.C.E until now. As of now the biggest controversy was the seaworld case involving their interaction with the orcas that had been the stars of their park. There were many other cases and the issue soon began to escalate as the number of injuries and occasional deaths increased. Once the problems go to court a decision of removing the exhibit was the best way to decrease injury by no longer creating contact with the animals. The United States should create a set of rights for animals in the entertainment industry in order to give those animals proper treatment.