Factory Farms and Animal Cruelty Essay

“This is horrible! I can’t even watch this!” Those were my immediate thoughts the first time my eyes were opened to the inhumane animal cruelty on factory farms. Factory farming enables mass production to supply the demands of today’s society but also enables the cruel treatment of animals. We need to end the cruelty and abuse that these animals have to endure at the factory farms because it causes loss to the business, reduces the quality of the product produced, and endangers the health of those who buy the product. We can promote humane treatment of factory farm animals by prevention through education, by enforcing humane laws by being an example of humane animal treatment, and by donating and/or

Animals are moral patients, therefore we have an obligation to protect them from suffering as we would babies and other humans that fall under moral patient

In Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

In Philosopher Peter Singer’s All Animals are Equal argumentative essay, Singer wants to emphasize the idea that animals should be considered to have equal moral value like humans. In Singer’s argument to liberate the rights of animals, he acknowledges the potential rights of non-humans and how they should be granted equal moral consideration. Clearly, there are obvious differences between a human and a non-human, but Singer wants to establish a relationship from a moral standpoint in order to reason for equal treatment between the two types.

However, it is not an argument of which life holds more value. The argument is that it is immoral to subdue animals to inhumane conditions for the purposes of efficiency and human food consumption.

However, if the animals were treated well and were killed painlessly, that would not be morally wrong because, in this case, eating meat is only wrong when the animals are not treated as well as they could be. Singer believes that every sentient being should receive equal consideration, but he is aware that humans and non-human animals do not deserve the same rights because different beings have different interests (Singer 149). An example Singer gives is that it would not be wrong to deny dogs the right to vote because dogs are incapable of understanding the significance of voting, so they cannot have the right to vote, but it would be wrong to deny a dog’s interest in not suffering since dogs have a strong interest in avoiding pain (Singer 149).

When we mention about farm, most of us have this image of a vast green pasture where farmers spend most of their time herding livestock but that idyllic picture is just a thing from the past. Since the 1930s in America, small farms started to wither away, made way to bigger and highly mechanized factory farms. It all traced back to McDonalds and the booming of fast food restaurants (Food, Inc 2008). Fast food restaurants had become successful because they could produce tasty food with cheaper cost. Their franchises eventually made them a multi-million-dollars industry. Big business required big suppliers. Small rural farms cannot meet the demand for supply and they quickly fade away. Farmers were being replaced by corporations in

The arguments made by Aquinas at first seem to be powerful. However, when examining and taking a closer look the arguments don’t seem to be as

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

Kant’s second categorical imperative is intended to be a framework to apply his ethics in a practical sense. However, it is only written to be applicable to humans and it excludes animals. Kant states, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (202). First, to explain the use of the word “humanity”. Kant refers to three components to explain humanity: rationality, absolute worth, and dignity (182). Thus, Kant implies that animals are not rational; therefore, do not have absolute worth and

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

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.

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.

To support Aquinas’ claim that money, honor, fame, power, goods of the body, or pleasure is not required for human happiness, one may cite they share ends for the sake of human beings. That is, their ends are meant only to fulfill human capacities

From a religious aspect, God also puts the fear of man into the animals and again animals are used to fill the needs of men (Genesis 9:1).