The Dairy Industry Is Humane

However, placing animals at the same level of humans is somewhat blemished. Animals do indeed have rights, although they are

In the article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, by Jeremy Rifkin argues about how scientists have shown and proven that there are many similarities between animals and humans. Jeremy Rifkin believes animals should be treated with more empathy and that the animals should be treated more like humans. I agree with this statement and that they should be treated better with more animal rights.

In today’s society animals still do not have all the rights that they deserve. We still perform medical experiments, hunt them for “fun” and food, and keep them locked up in cages for “entertainment” at zoos. If animals had rights humans would not be using them for selfish purposes for fun and entertainment. In the article by Jeremy Rifkin it is mentioned that “researchers are finding that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined. They feel

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

“Speciesism and the Idea of Equality” by Bonnie Steinbock is a rebuttal to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”. The issue presented is should animal rights be considered on the same par as human rights? The conclusion is no, animal rights shouldn’t be on the same standing as human rights. There are several reasons that support this conclusion. The first reason is that humans have abilities that animals don’t have. Steinbock states, “It is not arbitrary or smug, I think, to maintain that human beings have a different moral status from members of other species because of certain capacities which are characteristic of being human” (225). There are three sub points within this argument that help her case. They include: human

Creature rightsAnimals have rights. They have rights since they were made by god. All creature shouldbe treated similarly like human. Creatures are species like people. They are recently living theirown attempting to survive the world and endeavoring to live in peace.

One case of animal abuse in the U.S. food industry is the Central Valley Meat Co, located in Hanford, California. Employees at the Hanford Slaughterhouse were caught on video killing cows violently and inhumanely, neglecting to render cows unconscious before slaughter, and other forms of abuse. Many of the cows appeared to be sick and unable to walk as well. Under federal rules, sick animals can’t be slaughtered for human consumption. (Nidever)

Countless philosophers have improved their arguments against the view of animal rights; should animals even have full or equal moral rights. Stating that: (1) animals don't think, (2) animals are not really conscious, (3) animals were put on Earth to serve human beings, and (4) animals are not a member of the "moral community" (Ethics-Animal ethics: Animal rights, BBC). I will examine one of those arguments, in particular, an argument put forth by Mary Anne Warren, her argument lies with the moral standing of animals. According to Warren, some non-human animals have rights, but their rights are not as strong as the rights of humans (Warren, p. 114). Human posses’ rights in the strongest, fullest sense, because of self-awareness, whereas non-human animals may have some "weak" rights, which may or may not include a weak right to life.

Animals share the same right as human beings. To have a right is to have a claim or entitlement to something and to have that claim recognized by others. There are two types or rights; legal and moral rights. Legal rights are comulgated by law making part of government. Moral rights are stems from reason and worth for example life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I believe animals share both rights because the only difference between human beings and animals is basically the ability to speak.

Some say treat others how you would want to be treated. That should go the same with animals. Would anyone want to eat an animal that had been treated poorly and suffered and was abused just so it can help someone's hunger? How would that make a person feel emotionally? Probably not too good. Some dairy's get shut down due to it being too dirty and other unhealthy reasons or they put them self's out of business due to their Cows getting hurt because there is a quote that says "A hurt Cow is a dead Cow". Cows are exactly like humans except they live outside and they smell much more! Some people may look at a Cows and say that’s nasty or that they smell and only look at them as a dumb animal that is a tasty food source. However scientist have done studies on Cows and found that they have feelings just like humans and they also worry about their future, feel pain, have emotions, they even have long memories they can also sense fear in a human too. So I'm going to be talking about how Cows abuse can be a big deal and what is considered abusive. The three main topics I'm going to be talking about how some slaughtering methods, living

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.

In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.

There are many instances in a farm cow’s life where it endures pain, starvation, neglect, and much more. For instance, cows are “raised, like pigs, on a concrete slab in a stall barely bigger than [their] body,” and stuck in two-foot by seven-foot crates to stop them from biting each other’s tails, killing, and eating their offspring (Solotaroff). These animals are confined to a small plot for their whole life unless farmers order them to exit, preventing them from grazing being free. Additionally, cows are fed inconceivable amounts of hormones and drugs, aimed to increase weight, boost milk production, and to depress them, to prevent retaliation from cows when led to slaughterhouses. Moreover, the food that the cattle consume in farms is unhealthy, to say the least. The grain they eat is littered with “[broken] light bulbs, used syringes, and the crushed testicles of their young,” which are unquestionably harmful for a cow to ingest, regardless of it having four stomachs (Solotaroff). Finally, cows are forced to exert all of their energy to allow for farm owners to receive more profit. Dairy cows involuntarily ingest hormones, allowing them to produce “nearly 22,000 pounds of milk a year,” which is “more than double of what [was] produced just 40 years ago” (Solotaroff). This equates to around 60 pounds of milk a day, or approximately 7 gallons. To maintain such a high standard of milk

Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to humans. As pointed out by Jan Narveson "morality is a sort of agreement among rational, independent, self-interested persons who have something to gain from entering into such an agreement" (192). In order to have the ability to obtain rights one must be consciously able to enter into an agreement, non-human animals are

Animal rights are an important topic to discuss and review. The trouble is the vast diversity of how people see humans and animals and how they are different and yet the same. Animals are in every aspect of our lives in how they are utilized to make our lives easier, to sustain us, or as a pet. Unfortunately, the line of animals and humans blurs as the widely known belief that we are a derivation of an animal and we should treat them as we would ourselves. This viewpoint, however, can be taken to an extreme as we see pets that can be pampered quite a bit. Relating back to the four authors in our text, there is considerable controversy on how animals should be treated. While some interesting positions arise with the various authors, to