Arguing About Bioethics: The Obligation Of Animal Rights

"Humans act immorally often enough, but only they-not wolves or moneys- can discern, by applying some moral to the facts of a case, that a given act ought or ought not to be performed" argues Carl Cohen in his book Arguing about Bioethics (208). The animal rights movement has been active since 1822, although it was not known as "the animal rights movement," it was still a prominent issue (Walls). Animals should be protected, but rights do not equal obligation and animals are not moral agents. Animals should not have rights.

According to the US Legal website, "rights refers to the rights which a person has in relation strictly to the duties owed to him by others and the wrongs consequent to the breach or violation of such duties." The animal

There should definitely be a regulation on how animals are used when in science experiments, but what else would scientist use? Animals are the only resort to test different medicines and product on, but yes, it should definitely be regulated and should try to prevent death of the animal. When activist argue against the industrial style farming, they are not really arguing against the environment of the factory farm, they are against the killing of the animals. Activist would have a problem with the killing process of the species, even if the environment was better; this is proven by the third goal, which is no "sport hunting and

Animals are food; it is really simple when one is viewing it. When looking at a simple food chain, for the most part, humans are on the top. All throughout the food chain and/or web we see many types of relationships, the main one being dependent. Most nonhuman animals depend on other nonhuman animals for their main or only food source. The only huge difference is that it is not a crime for a nonhuman animal to kill another nonhuman animal. Animals have the obligation within the ecosystem and there has to be a balance. All of the pros of not eating meat is that it lowers risk of high cholesterol and high blood pressure, and makes you live longer, etc. (Bhide, Monica). This all sounds great when looking on the surface, but when looking at the long-term effect it is not that great. The death rate would drop and the world would become way over populated. The eating and killing of animals at a modern amount keeps the ecosystem at balance and it should stay that way. The limitations of this argument would be the overuse of animals for human purpose could lead to extension to many animals. This is true, and that is why there should be regulation in the factory farm industry and when sport