Animal Rights

Name:

Instructor:

Subject:

Date:

Animal Rights

Almost everyone has benefited from animals in a number of ways. If one has to question a sample of adults from various parts of the world, they will admit that they grew up wearing leather products, eating meat, and visiting circuses and zoos. At the same time, these people will admit that they have owned a pet or kept some birds in cages among other activities related to animals. In addition, almost everyone has worn silk and wool, eaten a McDonald’s burger or participated in fishing. In all these activities, animals are involved. However, human beings have partaken in such activities without consulting these animals or caring about the impacts of such activities on the animals involved.  This can be interpreted to mean that animals have no say on mater of their own and have no right in any decision made by human beings. Nevertheless, animals have rights and as such should be respected by humans at all times as discussed in this paper.  

Meaning and Arguments Underlying Animal Rights

Animal rights is the idea that all or some non-humans should be allowed to live their lives without suffering and their interests should be considered as it is to human beings.  Fellenz, in his book “philosohy and animal rights”(26) hihglights different ideas of animal rights and one of them is the speciesism idea.  Speciesism idea argues that animals should no longer be used as food or viewed as property, because they have moral rights. Animals should also not be used for research subjects, as beasts of burden, entertainment or for clothing. Another view known as the abolitionist idea calls for ethical veganism. This view holds that groups of animal rights that insist on animal welfare concerns make the public feel guilty when using animals. The abolitionist view is highly opposed as it is argued that animals are subject of a life with desires, a sense of their own future, beliefs and memories. There are also the protectionists who seek incremental reform on treatment of animals, aiming at eliminating all animal use. They argue that animals have interests and there is therefore no logical or moral reason to abhor their interests (Fellenz 31).  

The variation in ideas of animal rights resulted in animal law. This law indicates that animals have basic legal rights and personhood. This law is supported by some academics of animal rights because it breaks the species barrier but others oppose it because of its predication of mental complexity and moral value, rather than on pure sentience. Animal rights have been criticized in that animals cannot enter into a social contract, meaning that they are unable to possess rights. Critics argue that only human beings can have rights because they have duties. They add that animals can be used as resources without unnecessary suffering. They argue that animal may be accorded some moral standing but they remain inferior to human beings.  

Consequences of Animal Rights

Animal rights champion against things considered morally wrong to animals. Although there are certain things such as poaching which are principally wrong to animals, the focus of animals rights are more on moral wrongs. In this case, humans are not supposed to do certain things to animals even if such things are done in humane ways. At the same time, humans are supposed to desist doing things considered morally wrong to animals even if such things can incur some cost to humanity if not done. This means if animals have rights to life, they must not be bred for meat. Even if such animals are reared in a five-start facility, it will be principally wrong to kill them for meat after raring them for a while.  

There are some consequences of implementing animal rights. If animal rights are to be considered effectively, it means that no biological experiments will be performed on animals as it is the case in the current world. At the same time, the world will be forced to halt any practise of breeding animals for medicine, clothes or food. Furthermore, animals won’t be used for any form of labour and all zoos whose purpose is to entertain will be forced to close. Lastly, animal rights mean a stop to all hunting activities and other activities that affect animals directly or indirectly.

Cases against Human Rights

According to  Benthall (13), a number of arguments have been put forward to suggest that animals do not have rights and thus must be governed in ways deemed fit by human beings. Such arguments suggest that animals do not think, have no souls, are not conscious, lack free moral judgement and do not behave morally. The arguments against animal rights further suggest that animals are not members of a moral community, do not think, and were put on earth to purposefully serve human beings. According to Benthall (13), animals cannot engage in rational thoughts because they act based on instincts. However, such arguments are misguided as the propagators do not consider animals as part of component of life in the ecosystem with crucial roles.

Case for Animal Rights

 According to Fellenz (21), the debate in favour of animal rights is very delicate such that many philosophers have avoided supporting it. Fellenz (22) indicates that it is delicate to admit that animals have rights because such statement will have limiting consequences for human beings. This will mean giving certain creatures some rights that defy common sense. Fellenz (25) points out that the phrase ‘animal rights’ has been coined to mean rights of higher animals. In this case, the rights apply to mammals with sound mind. Nevertheless, animal rights are derived from human rights and this implies that both animals and human beings have similar rights that must be respected.