The Consequences Of Animal Rights

Improved Essays
Animal rights is an idea that non-human animals should be entitled to their own lives, and that they should be afforded similar consideration as human. I will argue that it is a better option for humans not to accept animal rights, and I will offer three reasons to support this claim. Firstly, Animal rights is limiting to the advancement in human health. Secondly, there are alternatives to accepting the Animal rights. Finally, Animal rights does not support animal control, which is important for sustaining ecosystems and the environment. The second point will be discussed as an extension of the first point.
In support of my first claim that animal rights can be limiting to the advancement in human health, I will offer two reasons. Firstly,
…show more content…
A consequence of accepting animal rights is that humans will no longer be able to experiment on animals. Common animals used in laboratories include rats, which are susceptible to many of the same diseases as humans because we share more than 98% of our DNA as them. Because it is easier to control their external environment compared to humans, the association between certain factors and health outcomes can be more easily detected with minimal confounding. Due to human rights, it is very difficult to conduct similar experiments on humans, and thus, even the most accurate epidemiological experiments such as randomized controlled trials are associated with substantial biases. Accepting Animal rights will, therefore most likely hinder the process of understanding diseases or how drugs work and therefore will limit or at least severely prolong our ability to cure diseases. Some Animal rights activist groups such as People for Ethical Treatment of Animals argue that there are alternatives …show more content…
The main focus of animal rights is to eliminate harm to animals, however the above premise has demonstrated that doing this would limit the advancement of human health. Animal welfare is likely to be a suitable alternative for animal rights because it acts to minimize pain and stress in order to maximize psychological wellbeing for the animals. There are guiding principles when it comes to experiments on animals used by some scientists, called The Three Rs, which has been developed under the principles of animal welfare. The Three Rs essentially encourages alternatives to experimenting on animals when possible, but aims to improve animal welfare and scientific quality where the use of animals are unavoidable (Understanding Animal Research, 2014). Therefore, it is probably better that humans support animal welfare instead of Animal rights, as it encompasses the ideas of both animal rights and the improvement of human health and meets somewhere in

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    One of deontology’s key principles is to treat individuals as ends rather than means. If animals are individuals, then using them to benefit humans at their expense would be to treat them as means to an end, and would thus violate their rights as…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved 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
    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

    However, the points that Attfield criticizes makes it so Rolston’s argument for policies is not perfect and leaves things vague like his definition for development and what should be done about the humans’ overpopulation. (Attfield 465-466). Overall, both sides of the argument are agreeable and can be combined to advocate limiting development and maybe replenish the natural world. However, nothing will change unless action is taken to potentially save what wilderness is left and preserve a balance between the environment and human…

    • 1006 Words
    • 5 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
  • Improved Essays

    A specific community may decide that the animals they use for many purposes including food and fur among others do not have rights, which leaves them vulnerable. On the other hand, a community that decides to protect animals rights may choose to define tough measures against those that violate those rights. Without a doubt, this theory is consequential in the sense that it prompts the conversation on animal rights, by asking people to consider animals as beings with feelings. Ultimately, what happens to animals will depend on the beliefs of a specific society since the majority will follow whatever society passes as…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Though I concede that in some situations, animal testing may be useful, such as in immensely important medical studies, I still maintain that it is unnecessary to make an animal suffer and be discriminated against. Although some people may think that animal testing is healthy and beneficial to humans, I believe that animal testing is unethical and utterly wrong because of the unfair repulsive treatment that animals receive from scientists. This topic is important because the world we live in is as much an animal 's world as it is a human’s world and right now humans are discriminating and enslaving…

    • 1364 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Ethics In Animal Testing

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Proponents of animal research want to argue that the avoidance of animals’ pain is not worth the suffering that humans endure; specifically when some human suffering can be prevented or treated with research using animals. “If a clinical research program will result in some procedure that has significant increases in well-being, then some suffering is justified” (Monaghan on Clinical Research, slide 36). This idea is skewed in animal testing. Yes, some of animal research has gone to benefit many humans and animals, but the fail rate of experiments at the costs of animals’ lives is just as great (Engel 4). The cost-benefit analysis regarding animal research has no good answer.…

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Additionally, animals do not exhibit human diseases such as HIV, Alzheimer's disease and many more. Therefore, it sounds useless to think that testing drugs to these diseases using animals will give accurate results (Slattery & Cryan, 2012). Apart from this, using these animals as test subjects also greatly violates the animal rights, because animals just like humans have feelings and deserve to be treated right. However, if not for the use of these animals, the medicine world would be stagnant. However, the use of animals as testing subjects should be banned, because it greatly invades animals’ rights and puts the animals through a lot of pain and suffering.…

    • 958 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is considered very unethical to use a human as a test subject in an experiment even for biomedical research, so animals are used. By simply accepting the use of animals in tests over the option of using humans, we are considered Speciests. If humans viewed animals as equals or as valuable as humans, animals would not be used as test subjects. This is a prime example of Speciesism, because we favor the human population by protecting them from being used in biomedical research. The reasoning behind Speciesism seems to be that humans have deeper…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays