Edwin Locke Animal Rights Analysis

In “Animal “Rights Versus Human Rights”, Edwin Locke argues that only humans have rights, and that animal rights activists are anti-humanitarian (1). He claims that only creatures capable of thinking and making choices have rights (Locke 1), having a right doesn’t depend on a creature’s ability to feel pain (Locke 1). He also implies that animals are unable to think and make choices (Locke 1). Therefore animals are inadequate of moral reasoning. Another point he makes is that animal rights activists place more value on animals than they do on humans (Locke 2).
Locke asserts that only creatures that think and make choices have right (1). He is insisting that humans are the only beings that are able to think and make choices. If this is the case, some “humans” are excluded from this statement, as they can’t survive and prosper by themselves, such as; mentally disabled people, infants, and senior citizens
…show more content…
He labels all animal rights activists as terrorists (Locke 2). He claims that animal rights activists want to destroy our society and that they value animals more than animals (Locke 2). Although it is partly true that there are some extremists among the animal rights movement, most of the activists are ordinary folk who just want give animals the basic rights that they deserve. There are extremists in every group but it is just a minority. 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. Only in primitive societies people eat each other. According to animal rights activists, there is no difference between cannibalism and eating animal products. They look at eating meat as

Related Documents