Arguments Against Animal Rights

There is an ongoing debate regarding whether animals should be entitled to rights and the implications to those rights as well. This issue would not only bring up how certain things would be considered wrong like hunting animals and keeping them locked in a zoo for entertainment, but would also imply how society has the obligation of preventing suffering brought on from animal testing. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that “rights are derived from the capacity to experience pain, and since animals’ experience pain just like people can, animals also have the ability to be free from harm.” Others, including Carl Cohen believe that although animals should be treated humanely that they cannot have rights because they lack the capacity to make moral claims. My position on this issue is …show more content…
Rights are understood as being legal protections against harm, and many argue that animals already do have rights under the Animal Welfare Act, and the idea of animal rights is not at all controversial. However, the Animal Welfare Act is only limiting the amount of pain animals are exposed to. During research animals are still put through the same type of harmful experiments, but are provided pain killers. This law only requires for animals to be tested on if there is some type of human benefit that justifies the action. If animals did have rights, then there would be no testing at all. These tests have actually been considered unnecessary because the treatments found have often come out unsuccessful, according to FDA, “92 percent of drugs that pass animal tests, fail to proceed to the market” (U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)). This shows how the suffering animals are put through to help improve the lives of humans isn’t all that productive. The Animal Welfare Act only creates the impression that animals do have basic protection but there is no moral justification when it comes to animal