From farm and exotic animals, to lab animals to those considered household pets, the subject of whether these creatures have a right to ethical treatment, and if so, exactly what that ethical treatment entails and to what degree has been a source of debate for many years…
While, because of its many practical and historical considerations, it is difficult to take “sides” in this argument. As a matter of ethical stance the argument of Regan and Singer presents a clearer more definitive philosophical/ethical case, while Baxter’s hyper-utilitarian defense rings arrogant, unethical, and morally bankrupt.
Both Baxter, and Regan and Singer rely heavily on the Utilitarian theory to support and dispute respectively the notion of ethics as applied to animal rights. As a theory of Mill and Bentham, Utilitarianism says the morality of an action is determined by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure to sentient beings. An action, as it were, is judged by its outcome.
Baxter states this case word for word through criteria developed from this theory to support his view that when it comes to that which benefits the majority of people, “Damage to penguins, or sugar pines, or geological marvels is... simply irrelevant” (Baxter 523). He neglects to discuss animals as feeling creatures. Anyone familiar with animals could never dispute this. It can hardly be leave out of any conversation, pro or con, when it comes to animal rights.
The basis of many of Baxter’s justifications is often expressed in dollars and cents, in the highly and often unethical human spheres of money, profit and even politics. “Penquins don’t vote” (Baxter 524), a sarcastic statement relating to the Utilitarian notion that decisions are made in the collective [by humans], and that animals, as not a part of that collective, have no say and deserve little consideration other than which man chooses to give them.
Baxter stoops to the argument that while some say they want to protect animals from harm in all circumstances they still allow them to be slaughtered for food. It is an old argument. Regan and Singer can not be accused of ...
Cite this document
(“Animal Rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 2”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/397699-animal-rights
(Animal Rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 Words - 2)
“Animal Rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 Words - 2”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/397699-animal-rights.
Before going into the discussion regarding rights of animals, let us get a better understanding of what this movement actually is. Bocco states, “Animal Rights is a movement that intends to protect all animals from being exploited and abused by humans”. The main cause of this movement is to make people stop showing cruelty towards animals.
The man kind was never entitled to use animals for entertainment purposes to say the least. Realization has been around in this regard and throughout centuries people have raised voice for animals rights The first instance in this regard was noticed in 1635 when a legislation was brought to forefront that opposed use of sheep fur for wool making .
There are organizations fighting for animal rights but those organizations are not as active as they should be. Analysis Tom Regan’s essay expansively presents the fate of animals; the 3 page essay sheds light upon how human beings think that animals are for us and we can use them any which way we would like.
History would provide some evidence even of man being buried together with his pet animal as revealed in some archaeological studies, indicating man’s closeness to animals, particularly dogs. In fact, even to the present day, dogs, among other animals, have proven themselves to have great utility value to men, after having shown that they can herd, they can hunt, they can track, they can sled, they can police, they can identify, they can sniff and entertain and do a host of other special skills that men would be less capable of doing.
These laws that give protection to animal rights also govern the treatment which animals are projected to in medical research and slaughter for human consumption. Advocates have presented different approaches on animal rights. There is the protectionist side that looks at treatment of animals.
Question 1 Human ethical attitudes and practices with respect to the non-human animals exhibit an inquisitive instability. On the other hand, several people believe that it is unethical and wrong to inflict anguish and death on an animal for an inconsequential reason.
Concerning this point, various philosophical considerations surface in order to convince the public that we have indeed moral or ethical responsibilities towards animals. Arguments are therefore essential in this case and it is the primary purpose of the work at hand to critically evaluate and focus on the relevant articles that Michael Pollan, Tom Regan and Harriet Schleifer have made available for the public’s perusal online.
The point of the proponent of this paper is to show why there is a considerable reason to oppose to animal rights. The following concepts about social contract, moral choices and intellect are discussed in order to
The research involves using animals for testing and trial purpose before using a particular type of drugs or treatment procedure to a human being. The animals used, in this case, have rights that control various factors on
Human beings tend to overlook the point that the general human race form pargt and parcel of the animals in the globe. The inflictions of pain, subject to stress, or even murder in the name of research are all
7 Pages(1750 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Animal Rights for FREE!