ipl-logo

The Philosophy Of Animals Rights Analysis

940 Words4 Pages

The Philosophy of Animals Rights
In the article The Philosophy of Animals Rights by Philosopher Dr. Tom Regan. The article creates an image of how life is and how we should care for animals like we would treat a loved one. Animals should not be only be treated equally, but seen as living beings and have the same rights as humans do. Dr. Tom Regan states “At its deepest level, human ethics is based on the independent value of the individual: The moral worth of any human being is not to be measured by how useful that person is in advancing the interest of other human beings. To treat human beings in ways that do not honor their independent value is to violate that most basic of human rights: the right of each person to be treated with respect (Regan).” This powerful quote demonstrates how we morally behave. Are we actually following our moral beliefs? Or are we just doing it because it benefits us? Regan makes us feel emotional towards animals rights and that it needs to be respected. …show more content…

Tom Regan from the Culture and Animals foundation (CAF), continues to use examples to shows how human ethics and morals beliefs should be reevaluated for the better. For instance, Dr. Regan states "At its deepest level, human ethics is based on the independent value of the individual: The moral worth of any one human being is not to be measured by how useful that person is in advancing the interest of other human beings (Regan). "With this mention animals of all species are creatures and living things, they're not just objects us humans can perform dangerous tests on. Regan specifically gives this example to show how that humans being should not be peer- pressured into doing things that are not

Show More
Related
713 Words | 3 Pages

In the article “A Change of Heart About Animals” by Jeremy Rifkin published in the Los Angeles Times on September 1, 2003 Rifkin advocates for the ethical treatment of animals and discusses how people perceive, and at times underestimate, animals and their abilities. Two letters were written, one by Lois Frazier and the other by Bob Stevens, to Rifkin in response to “A Change of Heart About Animals” and were published in the Los Angeles Times editorial section. Each letter expresses the author’s individual opinion on Rifkin’s convictions. Rifkin uses scientific studies, such as the ones conducted at Purdue University on pigs’ social behavior (Source #1 par. 4), to support his belief that

Read More
426 Words | 2 Pages

A letter written by Lois Frazier consists of additional opinions, on Jeremy Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart about Animals.” Rifkin is an animal rights advocate, he conveys his belief that animals are quite similar to humans. Frazier supports Rifkin’s humane ideas and voices several novel opinions of disproportionate rights, such as confinement, affliction, and depletion. In the letter, she sheds light on concerning topics that Rifkin does not address. She first concentrates on an animal’s right to be free and live in a safe environment.

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
782 Words | 4 Pages

In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.

Read More
113 Words | 1 Pages

I, like Mary Midgley, agree with Peter Singer in that humans should not harm or be cruel to animals if it is not completely necessary. I agree with his argument regarding animals being used for cosmetic testing and medical testing, and with his argument against harsh factory farming practices, but I find his moral argument against the use of animals for food questionable. I believe meat-eating as a dietary practice for all of humankind is justifiable. Peter Singer implies that humans and non-humans are equal in more ways than many people like to recognize, but one thing he fails to acknowledge is that humans and non-humans also share a shared instinct for survival.

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
532 Words | 3 Pages

In "The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights," Tom Regan argues that animals deserve moral consideration and respect, and that the ill treatment of animals for human purposes is morally wrong. Regan begins by stating that animals, like humans, are subjects-of-a-life and have inherent value. This means that they are beings who have their own experiences, projects, and plans, and that they have inherent value simply by virtue of being alive. Regan then goes on to argue that the exploitation and use of animals for human purposes, such as in agriculture, entertainment, and scientific research, is morally wrong and should be completely abolished.

Read More
1462 Words | 6 Pages

Moral Status of Nonhuman Animals Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher that believes we should accept the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle states that all beings, both human and nonhuman animals should have their interests considered with the same weighting. Singer believes this principle must be adopted to avoid becoming speciesist: defined as the preference of one species over another species. He compares this practice to racism and sexism but instead of discriminating by race or sex, we discriminate by species. Through careful consideration of Singer’s argument and objections, we are able to reject his claim that a nonhuman animal has the same interests as a human.

Read More
722 Words | 3 Pages

The book argues that people have lost respect and sense how to treat animals. As a society we value our own interests before others. The mankind sees this planet to be created for its needs, thus every living organism and non human animal is there for its use. Scully calls for animal protection and is opposed to any abuse toward the most vulnerable creatures on this planet.

Read More
1035 Words | 5 Pages

Only 38% of Americans strongly believe that an animal’s right of living is just as important as a person ’s right to live free from suffering. People will claim that animal abuse is morally wrong, yet when it comes to people’s so called needs, some of these same people will turn the whole situation around. For example, when we think of animals, a dog or cat suddenly comes to mind, but what about the rats and possums the people despise so much that they kill them? Or what about the pigs, sheep, and cows?

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
446 Words | 2 Pages

The main purpose of this essay is to support my opposition of animal rights by using phenomenological ethics. The meaning of this theory is the ability to see ethical dilemmas through the eyes of the “others.” To apply phenomenological ethics, one must put themselves in someone else’s, and in this instance the animal, or as many consider it, the nonhuman animal’s point of view. I will argue by explaining how phenomenological ethics can teach us to minimize speciesism, realize the pain and suffering animals go through, and why they should be considered a part of the moral community. Speciesism, as explained by Peter Singer is, “…discrimination against nonhuman animals just because of their species,” also saying that, “…it violates the principle of equal consideration-comparable interests” (548).

Read More
1306 Words | 6 Pages

Singer main focus in his work is to inform people about everyone’s imperfect perspectives. Singer also makes it clear that favoring one type of a species over another type is not considered speciesism. In addition, Regan agrees with the argument that animals should be considered on the moral realm. He believes that non-human animals deserve to have rights and be treated with respect. Eating chicken while expressing that eating fish is immoral is a fantastic example of a speciesist act.

Read More
339 Words | 2 Pages

Peter Singer, as a person who wants to have animal liberation, concluded that there is animal rights. He claimed that it is impossible to ignore creatures who suffered; therefore, we have to lie on our principle of equality that we have to count everything that suffered equally. First, he claimed that it is impossible to deny the basic principle of equality of consideration to other species unless it is because of selfishness of one’s. He stated that humans have to have consideration towards animals because they also suffer. In other words, humans have to apply the principle of equality of consideration to other beings too.

Read More

More about The Philosophy Of Animals Rights Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document