He gives the example of the burning house in which you have only time to rescue either the human or the dogs that are in the cage. The natural human reaction is to rescue the human. Those that argue that under contractualism animals would be assigned rights under the veil of ignorance argument would be invalid. This would lead to animals attaining full rights, such as the right to own property. If it is allowed that animals may have representatives to speak on their behalf behind the veil of ignorance there would be no good moral reason not extend this to others [such as mountains and plants] not to have representatives.
Further when contractualism is made by human beings in order to facilitate interactions between human beings and to make possible a life of co-operative community. This would extend to all those who are descended from rational agents human beings.
This would infants, the senile and the mentally defective. The author concludes that there is no basis for extending moral protection to animals beyond that which is already provided. There is no good moral ground for forbidding hunting, factory farming or laboratory testing on animals.
There is no good no reason to encourage the feelings of [extreme] sympathy for animals as those feeling would divert our attention from the claims of those who do have moral standing namely human beings. I believe that the Animals Rights issue is blown out of proportion. Animals or any other living thing for that matter do have a right to this earth as much as we do. With that said, I do take the opinion that everything on this earth is for the utility of humanity.
This said does in no way shape or form give any one the right to abuse, destruction, cruelty and any other form mischief. Animals should not be abused or made to suffer pain or as least pain as possible. When they are slaughtered for food they should be done so with the least painful method that will produce healthy meat.
Past methods of slaughter that did not properly drain the blood from the animal produced very unhealthy meat. Animals should not be made to watch other animals being slaughtered. These methods of treating animals kindly have been around with us for a long time. Any one that doubts that animals feel any pain should watch a wounded animal. Any child that kicked a cat or dog will notice that once kicked the animal will squeal in pain and retreat. Although, personally, I am not an avid meat eater I do believe in the right of humans to eat meat.
I would personally prefer either chicken, tuna, salmon or shrimp to any meat dish. I do however eat meat and support the rights of others to eat meat. Although technically you could get all the nutrients that one would get from meat from other sources why go out of your way when meat is readily available. I do however agree that we, in west especially, do eat too much meat. I believe that consuming this much meat is not a healthy practice.
Doctors will tell you that this much meat is not good for us. Most of our health problems occur because of this. Yes to a more humane way of treating animals Yes to eating meat. Yes to conserving our natural resources or a more wise use of our resources.
Yes to helping humanity everywhere and that should take precedence over any other creatures. Yes to ending human misery and suffering. Yes to Life to everyone that wants to live. Yes to those that want to die by refusing medication and not by suicide. IF I had a choice in what to give my money, to save a local animal shelter or human suffering in some faraway country I would choose to end as much human misery as possible. I believe that if you end human misery, you will end all misery.
If people were not so poor they would not be destroying all they can see in front of them. If you were to burden the third world countries with debt, while enticing them with TV programming of course they are going to use every bit of resources they have to meet their debt and seek that better and comfortable life that you are bombarding them with.
Further there is a flaw in the logic of the argument of specism. Who gives one species more rights than the other? Who gives the right of the Lioness to hunt Gazelles in the plains of Serengeti, and I none?
Is it because she has claws that can maul the gazelle with one blow? It is here where the logic breaks down. Why should I be a vegetarian, while the Bengal tiger enjoys meat and an occasional native, a human prey?
By logic of that argument we should turn all carnivores into herbivores. Try feeding that Serengeti Lioness tofu! Perhaps we, as a nation, eat far too much meat. That is no reason to turn vegetarian. Perhaps we are too mean and abuse animals far too much. Or perhaps we have become so sedated and jaded that we have never seen an animal slaughtered for food.
Once we see the slaughterhouse we are disgusted and turn vegetarian. I admit that I am a little soft, if I see meat not cooked or that does not look appealing to me I will not touch it.
University of California Press. It is a useful book covering many issues of animal rights activism and philosophy. In Chapter 18, Smith creates his argument in favour of animal research on the basis of human rights and duties. The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice Beauchamp et al. Through 16 case studies, and plenty of ethical theory, the authors attempt to navigate the moral minefields involved.
Case Studies in Ethical Choice. An Odyssey with Animals Adrian Morrison investigates the relationship between humans and animals, and explains why efforts to halt animal research would be damaging to human health. An Odyssey with Animals. Ethics Pro-Test looks at the question of whether animals have rights, concluding that their lack of understanding does not allow them to participate in the system of rights and duties.
Although it looks at the whole issue, it pays particular attention to the ethics, specifically in chapter three. The ethics of research involving animals. Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
It also has a useful and extensive references list. The Ethics of Animal Research. Ringach discusses the arguments made by animal rights activists about marginal cases — how do we compare the moral value of a baby, or brain damaged person to a mouse or monkey.
Do Animals Have Rights? essaysThroughout time, animals have been used by humans in several capacities: faithful companions, hard labor, food, transportation, product testing and medical experimentation. We as humans view animals as existing only to serve us as a means to an end. Sure humans look a.
Do animals have rights essay presented below is an attempt to make it clear whether animals should be protected against violence and cruelty of people. The following animal rights essay provides arguments in favor and against the issue of animal rights .
How to Decide Whether Animals Have Rights and Which Rights, If Any, They Have MAIN ARGUMENT FOR ANIMAL’S RIGHT Despite numerous efforts, scientists have not been able to find any fundamental difference between humans and animals. Free Essay: Do Animals Have Rights Animals are used to test the products that we use in our everyday life. Is it ethical or right to test our products on.
Animal Rights Essay - Model Answer Some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way humans are and have similar rights, whereas others think that it is more important to use them as we desire for food and medical research. Do animals have rights essay - Get an A+ help even for the most urgent writings. Let professionals do their tasks: order the necessary task here and expect for the best score Essays & researches written by professional writers.