Argumentative Essay: The Cruelty Of Animals

Improved Essays
The cruelty of animals has the whole world in a debate. The question however, is whether or not they have rights like humans. After reading the two writings by Peter Singer and Carl Cohen, I now have a better idea of my view on this widely known controversy. I believe that everything is put on this earth for a reason, even if that reason is to be eaten. In my view, pigs are on this earth to be bacon and sausage. Although this is a harsh view, humans have to fend for themselves and receive protein for nutrition. Although I believe that it is okay to eat animals, I do not believe that cruelty is correct. Treating animals in an inhumane way should not be allowed. Animals do have a right to not be tortured for no reason at all. Animals may have rights, but not as many as a human being. I also believe that it may not be moral to eat meat, but its also not immoral. Peter Singer discusses in his writing that all animals are equal and he believes in the “fundamental principle of equality” (Singer 578). Singer refers to animals as both human and …show more content…
Nonhuman animals do not have the capacity to make moral decisions. I also believe that is is not a bad thing to eat meat. Everything is put on this earth for a reason and I believe that cows are here for steak and burgers. This may not be morally correct, but it is definitely not immoral. I also believe that it is moral to test on animals if it has a positive result to help aid humans. On the other hand, it is morally wrong to test on animals when it does not serve a purpose to humans. I am a speciesist and I believe that the life of a human is more important than the life of a bear. However, I believe that it is morally wrong to torture innocent animals for no reason. Cruelty should not be permitted, animals have a right to not be treated bad for no reason, but other than that they do not have many

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    In fact, it is proven that meat is not a vital step for keeping good health (Singer para. 18). There are plenty of food options as an alternative to eating meat, yet humans continue to eat these animals for pleasure. Meat is not necessary for survival in modern life like it used to be for ancestors, so continuing to eat meat simply for pure enjoyment of the taste shows that humans often act selfishly. In addition, it is considered a social norm to eat animals, but extremely wrong to eat another human.…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Humans, animals, plants and all kinds of creatures live in this planet relevant to each other in an established order. To maintain the order and to keep the planet habitable we are responsible for our actions against other creatures. This leads to the point that we have some moral obligations towards animals. To clarify, we as humans can not cause unnecessary pain that even Edwin Locke who is against animal rights agrees upon (Edwin Locke, 1). However, these moral obligations do not include meat eating which many of animal rightists strongly disagree on but indeed include not to have animal agriculture under very cruel conditions.…

    • 1059 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The controversy over animal rights is one of the most argumentative in ethics and morality. Many people believe animals do not have rights, and that the people who support animal rights are liberals who need to find other outlets for their beliefs. Others feel it is our moral obligation to nurture animals as they cannot speak or act for themselves. Immanuel Kant’s view does not claim that it is permissible to cause pointless animal suffering, but he does insist that we have no obligations to the animals themselves. I will argue that humans do have obligations to the animals themselves.…

    • 835 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There are some extremists in human rights movements just as well. Animal rights activists don’t want to elevate animals above humans. They just don’t want them to die in order to provide people with a decent dinner. They see animals as people and want us to behave like that. Stopping the slaughter of animals doesn’t destroy the society we live in, instead it develops it.…

    • 810 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Direct duty means that we have a direct duty to not be harmful, but kind to animals. Doing kind acts aren’t guaranteed to be morally right because you can still be kind but cruel at the same time in a way. For…

    • 464 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    So instead of using the term “animal rights,” people should use the term “animal welfare.” Animals don’t have the same rights or even close to the same rights as us humans. Animal welfare states that we know that animals may be used for certain purposes but shouldn’t be mistreated or abused. Some people say that animals behave selfishly, and only look out for themselves and their own interests. Since animals don’t behave morally they don’t deserve to be treated morally by human beings. If we want animals to have rights like us humans then that means we can’t breed or kill them for…

    • 1066 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal rights activist do not want animals used for almost anything, hunting, research, or anything us as humans use animals for. Some people would think about the impact us humans have on a animals life, and believe it’s a big negative impact because of what we do with animals. I do not think we have a negative impact on animals, hunting keeps populations where they should be, research helps discover and prevent diseases and treatments to animals and also humans. “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the…

    • 772 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I think moral treatments of any living thing should just be left to what the people and our brains think is morally right or wrong. It is often argued that we treat animals morally wrong by testing chemicals on them to make sure it’s safe for human use. In order for our species to thrive and expand our knowledge we would need to test certain chemicals on animals because they are disposable. Sure humans are also disposable both since we are barely reaching the pinnacle of basic human right, I doubt people want to be volunteering other people to have experiment done on…

    • 739 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If humans, as members of the moral community, “are able to act for moral reasons,” (Hsiao, 285) it follows that we may choose not to act for moral reasons. Do human beings, as rational and cognitively advanced, not have the duty to consider the welfare of other beings, regardless of their moral status or lack thereof? Gert’s definitition of morality suggests that we do, as considering the welfare of non-human animals lessens evil and harm. Even if, as Hsiao argues, non-human animals are not moral beings, the consideration of animal welfare does not become unworthy of consideration simply because non-human animals lack moral status. The idea that non-human animals are not moral beings is insufficient in justifying the treatment of creatures whose quality of life is so greatly affected by exploitation and slaughter.…

    • 1328 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    We make the assumption of animal killing is fine as many of us don’t sympathize with the situation as we say simply were just “not animals”. This was also stated in the article by Kim as she says, “Human claims that they deserve respect and dignity whereas animals are to be nothing.” (2011) Both authors claims that animals are seen as products and are allowed to be mistreated because they are not humans. As we talked about in our class discussions that we take advantage of animals as they are not able to talk or we are not able to understand them. Another mindset that humans have is that clearly because we are raised knowing that it is insane and against human nature to treat humans like the way animals are treated or the way humans were treated in the holocaust. Ethically, we are born with prejudice that support humans to be treated in a different manner than the way animals are…

    • 992 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics