Do animals have rights?

Animal rights

In the modern society, it may be under law for each and every individual to have basic rights as provided by the human rights declaration. As stipulated, this merely benefits human beings, as they rule over the planet. Now, where do animal rights stand? Through this study we will focus on the issue of animal rights and what they suggest. Scores of individuals may not value animal rights and the reason as to why or how animals ought to be treated equally. Through numerous years of animal experimentations and research, human beings may be getting the gains in the “inhumane” treatment posed to animals; the desperate animals may be suffering through much distress and pain. Given that they too have rights and moral status; these rights ought to annihilate the countless problems with animal experimentation, abuse and also abandonment. Animals ought to have similar rights as those of humans.

A right may be defined as a certain means of defending interests, essentially to say that, an interest may be protected as a result of a right and protected from being violated or ignored merely for the reason that, it may benefit somebody else. Therefore, the question as to what is meant by animal rights arises. The concept of animal rights may be that animals have similar rights as to those of humans; to subsist a life liberated from suffrage, just as imperative as human, and with similar moral status as people. Animals have a right to be free of confinement, oppression, abuse and use by human beings. However, rights may not be absolute; in that, their protection may not be exceptional. DeGrazia, elucidates that animal rights may not be common to most individuals due to the killings and abuses to animals. These acts may be viewed as socially tolerable actions and may be disregarded owing to the normal day-to-day actions and even festivals involving the killing of animals (DeGrazia, 12). Most animal abuses may range from “live” animal shootings, experimentations and cosmetic testing or even the abuse of farmhouse animals. These abuses may be reasonably widespread and may be gravely considered inhumane and immoral.

Animals have “moral rights” and “moral status” in as far as humans do; however, at times it may be considered less essential when compared to the rights of humans. In his book, DeGrazia argues that humans and animals may each be viewed as individuals; however, whereas, both may be living creatures, animals may not have the ability to think abstractly or rationally. This makes scores of people to consider it acceptable to treat animals as their private property.  This may be wrong since mentally challenged persons or children cannot think abstractly or rationally, but no one dares to think of placing them through degrading biomedical experiments, or even to an extent of making them a source of food. Moreover, to a certain extent, animals may be short of “souls”, when thinking theologically or religiously. Having no logical correlation among these “facts” and the opinion that it would be extremely wrong to do some things to human beings; it may also be wrong to do the same things to animals.  The existence of animals may not be for humans and their uses; they have similar moral status as human beings and ought to be treated with dignity, for their good, since they have moral significance in their own rightful way, not having human relations.  David DeGrazia, mentions three progressively “strong senses” of animal rights in his book. The sense of “animal rights”, that signifies that animals have some “moral status”. The sense of “equal-consideration”, that denotes giving equal moral weight to animals’ and humans’ equivalent interest and finally, the sense of “utility-trumping”  that refers to human beings and animals having certain central interests that humans ought not to supersede even in the attempt to maximize society’s utility. A lot of animals may be treated as just mere resources and property; thus creating an unhealthy and unbalanced relationship. Moreover, animal mistreatment in terrible acts, may lead to human mistreatment too (DeGrazia, 14). Human beings can withhold or give their informed approval whilst animals cannot do so; hence, the relevant difference morally (DeGrazia, 25).  Most people believe that the “moral status” of an animal may be less than that of a human being, yet they silently consent to animals having their “moral rights”. They believe that they may be very unique and special, different from what they categorize as “animals”; however, there may be no major characteristics that differentiate humans from animals. Each and every trait that were on one occasion believed to be dissimilar, have been found throughout other genus.  If intellect was to set apart dissimilarity, the mentally challenged, children and the elderly would also be categorized as animals; however, this may have nothing to do with animals’ moral statuses; hence ought not to be mistreated.

Animals have the ability to suffer; hence, they may be worthy for consideration morally. The answer to taking animal interests gravely, lies in the necessity to provide content to the owned up rejection of the unnecessary infliction of animals suffering through the rule of “likes alike” being treated to animals and the application of the principle of “equal consideration”. As argued by DeGrazia , animals do have “moral rights”, so the opinion of “equal consideration” may be applied to people, as well as animals. Rationally the principle may be to provide each person’s comparable interests equivalent “moral weight”. This ought to be applied to all living things that have some sort of interest, except if there was a pertinent difference among the beings that actually justifies the “unequal” treatment. David DeGrazia makes it clear that unequal treatment that would fall under another structure of the animals’ “moral rights”, may be considered as the model of sliding-scale. People ought to have equal and full treatment, at the same time, animals deserve equal treatment in share to their emotional, social and cognitive complexity (DeGrazia, 37). From a view of animal rights, “animal experimentation” may be illegitimate of the animal or human benefits derived from it. This may be based on the propositions that: first, animal experimentation may not be necessary since research on animals causes much suffering for no or little gain. The advancement of alternatives continues to play a significant role in the diminution of the use of animals. The second proposition may be to weigh the gains of animal research compared to the suffering inflicted. Each and every animal has the ability to suffer; acknowledging this and also putting into consideration the point that animals have similar “moral rights” as humans may be vital especially due to the pain inflicted to the animals. As objects, the inept ion of suffrage on animals may be worthy of our “moral” consideration; for the utilitarian or economic value of itself to the possessor.

Utilitarianism may be the notion that maximizes gains over the injury inflicted to the animals, where each and every interest may be considered, including the animals’ interest (Rowlands, 36). The animals’ consideration may not be justified stipulated the harm, even if the intention may be served, by verity that the notion of utilitarianism may be broken.  The “animals’ equal rights” consideration may be the very strong view of animal rights; animals like humans have rights in the concept of “utility- trumping”. This concept demonstrates that animals have vital interest that humans may not supersede, even in the attempt to exploit the society’s utility.

In conclusion, billions of animals may be abused, harmed and slaughtered each and every year; causing massive amounts of distress pain and suffering on them. It may be wrong for humans to cause extended injury to animals for no compelling and justifiable reason, for the reason that they too have “moral rights”. We as human beings may be obliged to animals, and these may not be simply a ground to human anxieties. Nevertheless, the issues of “equal rights” and “moral status” may be more far-reaching and fundamental practically as stated by DeGrazia (DeGrazia, 38).  Animals also have as much “moral rights” as their human counterparts, and are most certainly worthy of their consideration. In a nutshell, animals also have similar capability of suffering from pain. Although, some may regard this as irrational, it may be the ethical and moral obligations upon each human being to provide animals with similar considerations as they provide to other human beings. Just as it may be illegal to harm or kill other human beings to achieve selfish tops, it may also be unjustifiable to murder animals for whichever unethical motives.

Works cited

DeGrazia D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status (Hardcover). Cambridge

University Press. Oct, 2007. Print. ISBN-10: 052156140X, ISBN-13: 9780521561402 Rowlands M. Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan. 2009. p.36. Print.

Order my essay

Being a law student is no mean feat. With all the heavy coursework, writing a cogent law essay can be quite taxing. To fulfill your term paper requirements, Lifesaver Essays is here with a team of dedicated essay writers who are more than happy to draft a 100% original and well-researched essay. So why waste time? Place a simple order and enjoy the benefits of our essay writing services at surprisingly cheap rates.