The Heedlessness of Animal Rights
Animal rights are the rights believed to belong to animals, so they can live experiment-free. The basic principle of animal rights according to PETA states that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment” (BROOK). It is no secret that animal rights is one of the paramount controversial topics of the 21st century. There are still debates today between animal rights activists and animal rights terrorists. However animal rights activists seem to captivate different audiences through the media. Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook, the co-authors of the essay “The Evil of Animal “Rights”’ elucidate that, animal rights activists are terrorists who use violence to get their requests accepted by different entities. Epstein and Brook, who are for animal testing belief that, using animals for testing is very vital when conducting research for possible cures of terminal diseases like cancer and AIDS. However, they do not seem to get their way …show more content…
Eleven cars belonging to Huntingdon employees have been firebombed, a senior manager had a caustic substance thrown into his eyes by a protester, and the company’s managing director was seriously beaten by masked assailants (qtd. In …show more content…
They also use emotional appeal (pathos) effectively when they write “to abide by this principle, we must leave animals free–to overrun and destroy our property, to eat our food, even to kill our children” (BROOK). However, it can be countered that Epstein and Brook use a slippery slope fallacy and an either/or fallacy because they give the readers a false impression that if animals have rights, they will eat our food, kill our children and ultimately be the sole cause to the extinction of the human race without providing any potent
Animal rights are the rights believed to belong to animals, so they can live experiment-free. The basic principle of animal rights according to PETA states that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment” (BROOK). It is no secret that animal rights is one of the paramount controversial topics of the 21st century. There are still debates today between animal rights activists and animal rights terrorists. However animal rights activists seem to captivate different audiences through the media. Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook, the co-authors of the essay “The Evil of Animal “Rights”’ elucidate that, animal rights activists are terrorists who use violence to get their requests accepted by different entities. Epstein and Brook, who are for animal testing belief that, using animals for testing is very vital when conducting research for possible cures of terminal diseases like cancer and AIDS. However, they do not seem to get their way …show more content…
Eleven cars belonging to Huntingdon employees have been firebombed, a senior manager had a caustic substance thrown into his eyes by a protester, and the company’s managing director was seriously beaten by masked assailants (qtd. In …show more content…
They also use emotional appeal (pathos) effectively when they write “to abide by this principle, we must leave animals free–to overrun and destroy our property, to eat our food, even to kill our children” (BROOK). However, it can be countered that Epstein and Brook use a slippery slope fallacy and an either/or fallacy because they give the readers a false impression that if animals have rights, they will eat our food, kill our children and ultimately be the sole cause to the extinction of the human race without providing any potent