Argumentative Essay: Do We Need Animal Rights?

Animal testing has been one of the issues that people are fighting overtime because of its moral. Even though some results of tests are successful on people, many people are still fighting for the animal’s rights. They believe that animals should have their own rights to live a free life where they belong, just like their species. In scientists point of view, animals have been one of the main subjects to test on, but a lot of them are currently looking forward to use and develop alternatives for the cruel act of animal testing.

Women in Ancient Egypt Script Opening Statement/Introduction Since the beginning of recorded history, different societies have had different values, attitudes and beliefs. However, one of the most distinguishing features of ancient societies is the treatment of women. Unlike modern-day beliefs, most civilisations regarded women as inferior to men; this has been indicated in many documents of literature (Cornell University, 2011) such as Economics by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Although, the majority of ancient empires enforced this ideal in one way or another, some ancient societies such as Egypt contradicted this perception of women. -Change

Examining the latter half of the 1800s with the assistance from the works of Elliot West, Joy Kasson, and Frederick Jackson Turner, the United States transformed into a settled and dominant nation which signaled the end of the frontier in 1890. From land disputes to reenactments of infamous battles for nostalgia purposes, the West had become a more modern civilization that emanated power. Although these three works provide a precise timeline from the Indian wars all the way to the closing of the frontier, they do not argue the same thing. The unique interpretations of the history of the American West is perceived by the authors in what they believed to be the beginning of the West as it is known today.

Peter Singer is one philosopher who attempts to answer this question. Singer being an advocate of animal equality argues that humans and animals are morally equal. He believes the unjust treatment of animals is derived from speciesism; describes the widespread discrimination

Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS

When comparing Utilitarian view with Tom Regan’s Kantian account of animal rights there couple common things. The first one is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain from human and animals. The topic is about the animal rights and treatment of the animals. The treatment and rights should be equal to both humans and animals.

Most humans tend to be in this trouble middle when it comes to their relationship with animals. They are concerned about the cruel ways animals are treated, but still contribute to it by eating animals, keeping them as pets or watching bullfights. They are aware of how unethical these actions are but continue to do it for their personal gain or enjoyment. Some also have complicated reasoning such as thinking it’s acceptable to eat certain types of animals and not others. Typically this type of reasoning varies depending on the region where one lives. For example, most people who live in the United States of America (U.S.A) think it is appalling to eat a dog while it is completely acceptable in places like China. Similarly, it is acceptable to eat beef in the U.S.A, but not in India due to their religious belief of the cow being sacred. These different cultures and religion have resulted in it being acceptable to eat certain animals in some places and unethical to do so in others. To avoid this troubled middle, all animals should be treated equally so that if it is unethical to eat one type of animal it should be unethical to eat all types of animals.

In comparison to Buddhism the Christian view on animal rights has been a difficult and complicated one that's varied greatly depending on the context within history, with different Christian communities in different nations coming to very different conclusions. The matter is closely related to, but still distinct to and broader than, efforts by Christian vegetarians as well as Christian environmentalists. Majority viewpoints in many nations have held that animals must be treated humanely beyond mere inanimate objects, yet the details of how exactly to do that have remained under discussion.

Why is it that we as a society condemn the actions of a man against a man but very rarely a man against an animal? I think this question must be understood if we are ever to change the rights animals have. As of yet I don't believe animals have any actual rights. Rather humans have rights that involve animals. If we are to truly allow animals to have rights the same or similar to humans then we must first define what it is that makes us feel as if they are entitled to rights.

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.

backs and they were dragging their hind legs (Reed 38). While in the lab, the

The concept of animals rights is based on the belief that nonhuman animals have similar interests and rights to those of human beings. It would be considered, not only unlawful, but inhumane to hunt, test, and use humans for medical research. However, we do exactly that to nonhuman animals in hopes of creating a better and safer life for existing humans. Do we do it because human beings, as opposed to nonhuman animals, hold a special place in nature? That human good is the only good? Or is because human individuals hold true to the “top of of food

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.

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?

I looked out at the sky, it was a nice summer day. The sun’s rays were bursting out, small wavy clouds rolled by. I looked over my shoulder and saw Anish running towards the school bus, panting and whaling his arms.