Essay On Non Human Animal Rights

Amazing Essays
There is lot of controversy surrounding the non-human or animal rights. There is much less disagreement on the consequences of accepting that animals have rights. Animal rights do not allow some things to be done on the animals. The ethics surrounding this teach us that certain things are wrong if done to the animals. It is important to avoid doing some things to animals. Animals are a major part of the environment. To protect the rights of animals is must to every human in the environment. Animal rightts are also known as "Animal Liberation", meaning that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be treated the same way as the similar interests of human beings. Animal law is taught in 119 out of 180 law schools in the United States, …show more content…
It is argued that the non-human animals have rights and that there is no morally relevant difference between the adult mammals and the non-human animals and hence adult mammals must have rights too. The main reason behind the argument is that the animals have same rights and deserve them as the other human being is that they have similar levels of the biological complexity; like human beings, animals are also aware and conscious that they exist which a lot of people tend to forget. The non-human animals also know what is happening to them; they also dislike and like some things like the human beings as well as making conscious choices. These are some issues that are behind fighting for the animal rights. The non-human animals also live in such a way that they give themselves best quality of life as human beings do. There are still some issues like animals planning their life by the animals as well as minding about their length and quality of their life. it is even more demanding for the animals to be given the rightss they deserve by not being exploited. Animals therefore have inherent values like the human beings and thus they are entitled to same rights to human

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Animals do have rights to a certain extent. Animals have the right not be mistreated and used by humans. Indirect duty means that we don’t have direct duties to animals, but we do have duties about animals. So torturing an animal is wrong because it harms the animal not because it upsets other humans. Direct duty means that we have a direct duty to not be harmful, but kind to animals.…

    • 464 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moreover, animals should be treated with the same moral respect as any other living thing. Moral equality is distinct from factual equality. Singer states, "Otherwise it would be nonsense to talk to the equality of human…

    • 739 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Many people aren’t willing to acknowledge that animals feel pain and suffer too. Animal welfare was set up to protect animals from any physical harm done by humans such as abuse, experiments, etc. Unlike, animals rights activist, animal welfare activist sometimes support animal testing as long as the animal is cared for, fed, and treated well. On the other hand, rights activist…

    • 1540 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This means that the human-created notion of a right can only apply to humans. Therefore, animals have no rights, but humans still have an obligation to treat animals properly. In an effort to make the wording more concise, the term “animal” will refer to all animals (Kingdom Animalia) other than humans. A right can be defined as a moral requirement that aims to better the life of an individual. Rights can provide protections…

    • 1642 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this case, a person’s reputation and morals come into play when analyzing their behavior; their action, while out of the ordinary, does not have a bearing on their judgment. Animals ethics calls for the respect of animal rights (bbc.co.uk, 2017); therefore, if one is known to preserve these rights, then he or she may not be judged negatively if they one day, inadvertently or otherwise, end an animal’s life or use it for other purposes. However, one may have a change in their moral standing, and realizing this may be tough since one must amass evidence for people to notice a change in morality. Seemingly, this theory is nonconsequential since it is inapplicable to animal rights; furthermore, it applies to humans’ morality and behavior, which could be…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Fox, an ethical philosopher, “Animals do not have ‘rights’ equivalent to humans due to their exclusion from the human ‘moral community’” (Baier 137-138). This “community” includes having a sense of time, being able to make decisions and having a sense of self-awareness (Baier 138). Therefore, testing on animals is more ethical than on humans, based on their inferior status. On the other hand, Peter Singer is against animal testing on the basis that animals do feel an extraordinary amount of pain and should have as many rights as humans. Animals should have equal rights just like…

    • 1560 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Argument For Animal Rights

    • 1036 Words
    • 4 Pages

    I do not fully believe that animal rights are completely equivalent to human rights, but I hold true to the fact that animals have the right to be treated humanely because animals do have basic senses and emotions. Regan does mention that animals can feel pain and suffering, and I do agree with his view on that. So, what would be the consequences of giving animals rights? The major consequence that I see about giving animals rights is that farm factories would have to be monitored more closely to ensure that animals are being treated fairly and humanely. This means that no animal will be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering.…

    • 1036 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Richard L. Cupp is under the impression, “nonhuman animal species are incapable of significant moral responsibilities,” (1). Therefore, animals should be no more than property and behavior change has to come within the abuser. Morals are knowing what is right and wrong. He believes animals do not possess this so being property is sufficient. Humans have responsibilities to animals.…

    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays