ipl-logo

Analysis Of Francione's Argument For Animal Rights

1030 Words5 Pages

Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia. Charlton is also a law professor at Rutgers University and she is the co-founder of …show more content…

They argue that the rights of animals should be similar to human rights. This issue was supported by two examples, which can both be argued against. One of the examples was the comparison of animals to chattel slavery. The definition of a slave is a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. These animals may be the property of humans but the animals are not forced to obey the humans or work for them, which shows that it is an invalid comparison. Furthermore, animals have different demands, wants and needs compared to humans as they are different species that live under different conditions, where humans do not know what the animals want as there is no communication between the animals and humans. Therefore, each species should have a different type of lifestyle and different rights, so the authors argument towards animals and humans having similar rights is irrational. In addition, the authors are against the property of animals by humans yet have six dogs as pets which make them hypocritical since these pets are considered their property. They cannot set an example towards the issue they are discussing, which is the rights of animals not to be property, when they are going against their own argument by having six animals as their …show more content…

The article mainly focuses about this issue, not mentioning the aspects of animal rights. The authors argue their points well but can have counter-arguments against some

Open Document