The rights of animals which are also known as animal liberation, is the subject that the most fundamental interests of animals should be given the same consideration as human beings interests. Advocates view the issue from different perspectives. They accept that animals should be considered as non-persons and members of the good community.
They also agreed that animals should not be employed as source of food, subjects fro research, clothing, or entertainment. Advocates argued that human persons should stop taking other sentient creatures as asset. They should not even take these creatures as property to be handled kindly (Carroll, 2004).
An animal right is an association that plans to guide the entire animals from being abused by human beings. Animal’s abuse entails the use of animals in away that it might make it feel pain or undergo suffering. The activities that might lead to animal’s abuse include medical experimentation, fur production, and locking up of animals in shows and zoos (Brooks, 2008).
The movement for animal rights has different goals from that of animal wellbeing groups. The welfare activists advocate for a more caring treatment of animals, while activists for animal rights demands animals to be regarded as persons, rather than assets.
Organizations that work for rights of animals always cover fields such as wool and fur industry, animal’s testing, aquariums and zoos, and pets. Majority of animal’s rights supporters are vegetarians, because using animals as a source of food is discouraged. However, this is not a necessity, but among the activists, it is becoming a standard (Hills, 2005).
Animal’s rights are used to put limits on the behavior of human beings. If we are unable to put clear legal restrictions to the behavior of human beings in relation to animals, it would be hard to start legal actions against those individuals who go beyond these limits. Animals are defenseless and completely under the power of man. Individuals who ignore the animal’s well being should be taken to court and be accused for abusing the rights of animals.
Since civilization, started animals have played a part in human society. In the beginning, animals were searched for food, and these animal’s skins and bones were too utilized in cloth making, shelter, and tools. After sometime, animals were kept at home and utilized as burden’s beasts. These were used for food and clothing, and for several other purposes. Of late human beings, such as, farmers, animal keepers, and research scientists, May utilized animals but are forced handle them decently. In United States of America, there are anti-cruelty policies that ensure that animals are treated kindly.
The relationship between human beings and animals therefore need to change. It is not good for human being to interfere with animal’s lives. We should not accept all the use of animals by human beings, whether for clothing or food, as a companion or pet, for sport ride or race, and commodity safety testing.
Individuals as well as several animals are entitled to a given rights simply because they have a fundamental understanding of the universe and some sense of things they needed from life. The animals that are older than one year qualify for fundamental rights, that is, the right to stay minus human’s interference. It is not right for human beings to use animals to provide their own requirements and interests.
First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service
- Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
- Your requirements and targets are always met
- You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
- You get a chance to become an excellent student!
Animals do have a right. Therefore, it is not right to kill and eat them, to maintain them as pets, to make the animals suffer in away that it does not benefit them. It is important to note that the sick, the distorted, and the hereditarily impaired have equal rights as the one tha are healthy and strong. With the rights of animals in place, no human beings have the rights to murder a sick, injured, or genetically impaired animal.
The fight for rights of animals has jus started. It will end once the human contest understands the true morals of every animal. These values must not be formed upon man and his world view. Man needs to stop protecting animals that are valuable to them and begin protecting living creatures, no matter how frightening, bad, or mysterious they may look. Since, at the end, we have to encounter our fear (Linzey, 2004).
Giving animals certain rights would demand human being to utilize his powers of creativity and inventive to resolve the conditions of living which is free from animal exploitation. This could result to another revolution that is more complete and fundamental than any other historical revolution.
However, animals are only able to express themselves indirectly in case of abuse. Concepts that are eligible for forming the basis of animal rights are intrinsic value, welfare, respect, freedom, equality, compassion etc. Many of these concepts seem suitable but are less suitable if we apply them in practical situations. Animals should be given the legal right to display their normal behavior dependent on their natural, even if they are found to be harmful, dangerous and their movements have to be restricted.
actually, land animals do not ask to be encircled by water.
Whales in the sea needs more than just swimming habitat. It would be very wrong to permit wolves to dwell in areas where humans and their livestock live. Farm animals should be taken care of properly, animals in the wild should not be fed at all.
Moreover, measures, such as shooting predators or introducing diseases, taken to counter ecological, pollution and degeneration, substitute habitats or protection should be abolished completely.
When issues are at risk such as animal welfare, their intelligence, feelings and instincts, it must be concluded that it is necessary to come up with a clear guidelines to judge by. Questions arise like "do fish have feelings?" or "does a pig or pet get bored?" It would be impractical to give correct answers such question and for this reason, they cannot be incorporated as vital concepts for animal rights. On the other hand, it would be suitable to include such concepts in when working out animal rights when trying to prevent abuse of animal interests.
Ill-treatment of animals is liable to be punished by law as laid down in the, “Dutch Welfare Act” but does not include penalizing submissive maltreatment of animals, for example, extreme restriction of an animal's freedom of movement. However, disregarding animal's well being is associated to animal privileges but animals also have basic rights in case of an ambiguous relation between human behavior and the animal's well being. Jeremy Bentham (2006) who believes that the important question is "is an animal capable of suffering"? That is if so, animals have the right to be measured equal to humans in this aspect but it does not grant the animal rights.
The current movement rights of animals is concerned to tackle this situation and display that, just as commercial, intellectual and cultural life flourished in Britain after giving up in Africa, there is a good future minus animals exploitation. Human beings are supposed to demonstrate what is always denied. Many animals in Britain in each year are unwarranted sufferers of human business and culture. This always happens because animals posses status of just objects. Therefore it is good to encourage means of living that avoid the flesh, secretion, and animal’s skins. Reject the pet’s trade and be against leisure pursuits that rely on harrying and humiliating other species.<
However, it is impossible to do all this but try as much as possible to do very little harm to these creatures. Human beings often claims over their lives, and it is openly known that this do not apply to creatures who do not know moral procedures, and who do not have beginning of their duties. The only rational enlightenment that can glean from some body’s response is that animals posses rights because you have mentioned so.
However, in my own view let us support animal’s rights. The very least thing one can do is it is to kill animals, to eat them, to have them as pets, to make them undergo suffering in any way, that is no individual benefit and it is not right in any way that it is wrong to do any of this to a human being. These is what the activists believe in, animal should have the same rights as human beings. It is important to come with laws like anyone found killing animals in anyway should be able to face the law of mass murder. This is meant to cub and helps reinforce animal rights. That people who kill cats are complicitous in serial killings. That keeping a horse in his stable is a case of phony imprisonment. That is by digging the garden involves the inattentive slaughter of innocent worms, beetles, and moles. Which activities involving animals would be permitted, and on what grounds?
In view of the people now take the view that the animal species is not entitled to the dominion that it has so far asserted over all other species in the world. However, they express this by saying that animals, like human being on earth, have the same rights. Hence, many of the things that we do to these animals should be morally vulnerable. I find agreeing with this ideology, but not with the assertion. The acknowledgments of rights to animals to me seem to be a radical exit from the norms and taboos of moral argument. If animals rights are taken slightly it would destabilize our ability to make the imperative decisions that we now must make if animals in general, and wild animals in particular, are to enjoy a sustainable future of animal rights.
However, in conclusion today's animals do not have rights. In unusual cases, certain species, such as dogs and cats, are given legal protection and are safeguarded. It proves severe bias when it comes to animal privileges. Species are not considered to have the same values. Humans cherish only the abilities, which can assist or suit people in definite ways. Cats are gentle, dogs are loyal, and dolphins are friendly (Owen, 2009).
A relationship, which is based on this understanding, can only be demeaning towards animals, and recognizes animals only as guards or companions. Inner worth is overlooked. Actually, when there is no need for the kind of values these animals provide us with, they become suitable to be only our food. It will finish once the human race realizes the true values of all animals. In addition, these values should not be modeled upon man and his view of the world. Man should stop protecting only animals, which hold value for manhood and embark protecting and defending all living beings, no matter how frightening, unattractive, or mysterious they might seem (Regan, 2004).
Since in the end, it is uncertainties we have to face, and the most prevailing among them is fear of what we might attain and how we might change once we grant animals certain essential rights. Moreover, giving way certain rights to animals would require one to use his imaginative and inventive powers to establish living conditions free of animal abuse. This could lead toward another revolution of animals, more inclusive and more essential than any industrial or political revolution in history. Total deliverance of animals is the only way of liberation of man (Nussbaum & Sunstein, 2005).