Animals have always played a pivotal role in societies throughout the past. Some communities praise animals, while others use them as a symbol of wealth, and some sectors own animals merely as companions. Throughout the article “The Case Against Pets” Francione and Charlton (2015) argue that animals must not be property, and consequently need to gain basic animal rights. As law professors at Rutgers University, and publishers of a book about animal rights, the author’s viewpoints and research are held credible. Nevertheless, despite their arguments being supported by validated and reliable evidence, both authors are biased towards their viewpoints.
Initially, the authors argue that the domestication of animals must be prohibited as it violates the basic rights of animals and raises moral questions. One right that animals must obtain is the right not to be property. When animals are a property they are mistreated and not protected. Despite the laws that governments such as the US and UK established towards animals, they only seem to be effective when a conflict arises between the owner and the animal. Furthermore, the
…show more content…
The authors rely on their personal opinions and firmly believe that there should be no more animals into existence. Yet, by preventing animals from prospering and living amongst humans, the authors are defying biological laws and cycles. In addition, the existence of animals is vital in the lives of many individuals. The article highlights the fact that animals are completely dependent on humans, however the reverse relationship is also possible. For instance, some humans with disabilities use animals to escort and guide them. Furthermore, the article states that humans must only exploit animals for scientific research. However, this argument is not supported by any primary or secondary source, and is entirely