ipl-logo

Bill Of Animal Rights

614 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Arguments for animal rights

Do you think animals should have rights? Animal rights are rights believed to belong to animals to live free from any service to humans. This would take away lots of advantages we take from animals. Animal rights sounds like a good thing, but could cause lots of consequences. Animals do not need a bill of rights because they are animals, not humans. If animals had a Bill of rights then that will take away lots of great advantages such as eating. We would be able to eat cows, pigs, chickens, and lots of other animals because they have rights like humans. Humans have to eat in order to survive and not everyone is a vegetarian. Animals do not even know that they are food, because they do not think like a human. A Bill of Rights for animals would …show more content…

The producer will have to spend more money on the animals, so cause of this then he would increase the price in the items he sells. The Bill of Rights cannot be broken because you will have to pay the consequences in court. Animals have been food for centuries and although in the documentary “Food Inc.” they say that it is wrong how they kill the animals, they are still going to die anyways. In the documentary “Food Inc” it shows how cows are killed, even though that looks cruel, they are food and that is how we survive. Humans use animals to do test on and see results. If animals have a Bill of Rights then this would affect us because how would we know if the cure for cancer or other diseases really work. If the scientist does the test on a human and it goes bad, the human will die. A Bill of Rights for animals would hinder medical research for doctors and other specialist. Animal and humans are very similar; we have the same organ systems performing the same task in more less than the same way. A human is more valuable than a cow or a pig, that is a fact. So why let animals have rights like a human?, that is

Show More
Related
155 Words | 1 Pages

It is basically survival of the fittest. Giving animal’s rights should be necessary only if they are being abused. For example, forcing dogs to fight other dogs till one is dead. If the animals are killed for our basic human needs than it should not be wrong. I agree with Bob Stevens in his letter to Rifkins when he mentions the fact that pigs would get toys even though there are human beings in the world who do not have such things.

Read More
654 Words | 3 Pages

The theory or idea that animal has rights comes from the rights that are traditionally moral and politically correct rights is a virtue from the type of culture that we are. Animal liberation comes from the utilitarian tradition that comes from ethics and mortality as coming about as a result of pleasure and/or pain, as someone’s overall well-being. When animals are caged harvest, this diminishes their well-being, which gives us the mortality that we address their decreased well-being and prescribes to us to liberate

Read More
269 Words | 2 Pages

For vegetarians, animal rights should trump human rights. In “Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Animal Rights,” Tom Regan defines animal rights as “the natural right to life” (307). Similar to Regan, many vegetarians believe that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. By switching to a plant-base diet, people will be able to alleviate the needless suffering and deaths of countless animals. Besides, in the same article, Regan also suggests “to treat animals in a more humane manner” (308).

Read More
640 Words | 3 Pages

However, I feel they are going too far and much too extreme in order to stop farmers and researches from obtaining animals from the wild. Certain groups capture animals whether its farmers, rescuers or hunters. Because of the various groups obtaining animals, there are certain requirements and animal regulations for each group. Farmers usually obtain animals to provide food for the nation, rescuers obtain animals as a means of rescuing them from the cold environment or even from being pets in violent households and lastly, game hunters capture animals for their own personal means. Out of these three categories of people, I feel that the one that animal rights groups should target are the hunters because their hunting of animals does not help human or

Read More
615 Words | 3 Pages

Not all animals need rights just the ones that are more associated with human life. For example, flies, cockroaches, mosquitoes, etc. won't need them because they are little insects that just carry bacteria and other types of diseases. Animals like whales in the film blackfish need rights because it shows how frustrated they get with the small space that they have to live in their whole lives. Giving rights to whales and other animals like dogs and cats etc. won't affect much the human culture because it's just going to give them a little more protection against human abuse towards

Read More
862 Words | 4 Pages

Many Americans blindly believe that animals deserve the same rights as humans, but little do they know about the differences between the welfare of animals and the rights of animals. In the article A Change of Heart about Animals, Jeremy Rifkin cleverly uses certain negative words in order to convince the readers that animals need to be given same rights as humans, and if not more. Research has shown that non-human animals have the ability to “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love” (Rifkin 33). Animals may be able to feel emotions, however this does not necessarily mean that they are able to understand what having rights mean. While humans must accept their moral responsibility to properly care for animals,

Read More
1408 Words | 6 Pages

One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).

Read More
655 Words | 3 Pages

I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.

Read More
1640 Words | 7 Pages

As a society there should be a continuation of proceeding to develop new laws. Animals have rights that are not being protected or considered when they are not given the chance to live without suffering or harm. Additionally animal rights are violated when they are used as products for experimentation. Animal experimentations

Read More
799 Words | 4 Pages

Animals need to have support, because after the testings done they die or look awful. Their skin is patchy or they can not see or hear anymore. Animals need to feel safe and that is where humans should advocate the rights for

Read More
967 Words | 4 Pages

Rights are against the use of force and they are our primary if not only our means of survival. There is only one fundamental right: To live successfully, a man has to make his own choices as well as animals too (Roleff,2014,p.33). There is a huge difference between giving animals their rights which is less than human beings and not to give them rights at all. Nowadays animals are presented in many places of entertainment such as zoos and cruces as well as aquariums where the audients pay a lot of cash to watch fun and exciting things going on, it sure makes us happy but what about the animals are they happy too? Are places of entertainment appropriate for wild animals to live in it normally?

Read More
1421 Words | 6 Pages

Eating meat is beneficial to humanity, because they provide nourishment that cannot be obtained from other sources. Without the support of animals, humans lack a distinctive diet, that is essential to their well-being. However, since animals are so important to the diet, they deserve great care and respect as well. Humans were always hunters and gathers. They always knew that meat was a big source of protein that helped keep them going(Araki).

Read More
1800 Words | 8 Pages

They do not breed certain kinds of animals for their food. However, humans breed a certain kind of animals just for food and these animals are always enclosed in a small place. These actions deprive animals’ right and violate the

Read More
748 Words | 3 Pages

Violating animals is not good do we really want to do that just so we can have some food there is so much other thing that we could eat(Eating animals). This just tells us that we do not have the rights to violate animals for food. In the article http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/eating_1.shtml it state that killing animals is bad because animals

Read More
1061 Words | 5 Pages

(“Human Society Organization,” 2014, para.5) Should there be such thing as animal rights? Yes they should because animals are just like humans. They have a nervous system and can be affected both physically and mentally. Animal Exploitation comes in many different ways. Some

Read More

More about Bill Of Animal Rights

Related Topics

Open Document