FREE ESSAY ON ANIMAL RIGHTS

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animal Rights
Every year an estimated 25-35 million animals are subjected to painful and cruel testing
in laboratory experiments. These experiments are performed to better the health of human
beings by means of research. Many of these non-human animals are put through tests that
you would not wish on your worst enemy. Many wonder if the means justify the ends in
these particular experiments.
Controversy occurs when there is a perception that the animals being used in the
experiments are subjected to cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment. Proponents of animal
testing cite the death and suffering of infants, children and adults due to diseases that
still have no effective treatment or cure. If animal testing is morally justified, what
are the circumstances that justify it.
Should animals have rights? Some philosophers believe sentience is the key to determine
the ethical status of animals. If non-human animals should have rights, then how do we
determine what rights to give them. We have the right not to suffer. Why don't animals
have the same right? Do all sentient beings deserve rights in relation to their
well-being?
Dogs cannot realize the importance of voting; therefore, they have no interest in voting.
This is why dogs do not have the right to vote. If non-humans suffer just as we do,
should they have the same rights we do? From a utilitarian point of view, you might ask
the question: is the suffering of these non-human animals out-weighed by the relief that
it can bring humans? Many experiments that were performed on animals have been very
beneficial for human health. On the more common side, numbers show that non-human animals
are tortured and put through cruel testing with little or no results. Should a non-human
animal's suffering ever outweigh a human's suffering? 
In 1792 Mary Wollstonecraft, an early feminist published A Vindication of the Rights of
Woman. At the time of this publication, the general population considered her thoughts on
women's rights ridiculous. Thomas Taylor, a highly regarded philosopher, rebutted her
position by publishing A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. In this article, Taylor
attempted to convince his readers that it was as absurd to give women equal rights, as it
was to give these same rights to dogs, cats and horses. 
Singer initially defends women's rights by citing the similarities between men and women.
He argues the case for equality between men and women. He states "women have the right to
vote, for instance, because they are just as capable of making rational decisions as men
are..." He then admits that there are obviously some important differences between human
and non-human animals, just as there are important differences between men and women. By
setting out that there are also many important differences between men and women such as
pregnancy, it is meaningless to support the right of a man to have an abortion. 
Singer believes that it then follows that every group should be extended basic principles
of equality. He does not believe, however that equality means human and non-human animals
should have the same rights or be treated the same way. He proposes only that equal
consideration be given to both groups. 
The author advances his idea of equality by comparing and contrasting both human and
non-human capacities for suffering and enjoyment. He believes both groups have a moral
and ethical right to consideration. He defends his position by reminding the reader that
we extend this consideration to even the most non-functioning and severely retarded
individuals in the human species. He asserts that if non-humans have a greater capacity
to feel or experience suffering than the most damaged of humans should not we then extend
to these non-humans the same consideration given to least sentient of the human species.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, racism is defined as the belief in superiority of a
particular race. Peter Singer defines speciesism as the belief in superiority of a
particular species. He points out that since we do not separate individuals because of
skin color, level of intellect or physical capability it follows that non-human animals
that may have these same similarities or differences should be treated with equal
consideration afforded human animals.
The reasoning behind this is that each classification of species, just as classification
of race, has been defined by the human race to more easily research and define different
animals. Although any competent human being should be able to discriminate between these
two animals, no one can actually define a single discriminating feature that separates a
dog from a cat. Since there is no one distinction between being a cat and being a dog, it
can also be said that there is no distinction between being a human and being a dog. 
Singer concludes that using non-human animals vs. human animals of an equal or greater
capacity for suffering is rarely justified. He contends such experiments would be
justified if, and only if, a human animal of an equal or lesser capacity would be
justifiable. Just as using gender or race to determine a being's inherent value is not
considered justifiable, neither is a being's species acceptable justification in
determining its value.
Before mammals, there were dinosaurs. Some dinosaurs were carnivores and others were
herbivores. The tyrannosaurus for example ate flesh out of necessity. The animal's
physiology and sheer size dictated its eating habits. Throughout the evolution of life on
earth, it is a well-known fact that every species, with the exception of recent man,
kills only what is what is necessary for the survival of the 'species'. This "take what
you need" behavior is pervasive throughout the entire living kingdom.
Early man not only instinctively obeyed, but understood and respected this take what you
need principle. The morality of animal rights has been demonstrated in even the most
primitive and "uncivilized" cultures. Only since Christianity introduced the divine
creation theory has man assumed a superior moral worth over non-human animals. 
From our earliest records of pre-historic man up to modern day tribal cultures man's
reverence and respect for animals has been documented. From the simplest and most
primitive depictions of life found on the walls of caves and as artifacts we are led to
believe that these early people understood, valued and respected the role of non-human
animals. These cultures recognized these non-human animals for their contribution to the
survival of the entire animal kingdom. 
The modern tribal cultures that still exist today have helped us better understand this
philosophy of life. Some modern Native Americans still preserve this value and respect
for the animals, with good reason, these animals are what have given them life for
thousands of years. It has been a necessity for man to use animals for food and clothing
until the industrialization of man.
The ancient Greeks were probably the first culture to consider themselves as morally
superior beings. Not only did they believe that they could use non-human animals as they
pleased but they also believed their superiority extended over any form of life, human
and non-human. This perspective and belief in the intrinsic superiority of Western
European culture gradually spread through the 'civilized' world. 
It has been widely accepted that this devaluation of some human life and all non-human
life had its genesis in early Christianity. Divine Creation theory stated that man was
created separate from and morally superior to animals. It was because of the introduction
of this philosophy that the take what you need mentality gradually drifted into a take
what you want mentality.
As man began to take what he wanted, as opposed to only taking what he needed, he started
to depend on these previously unnecessary items. Since man depended on things such as
transportation, electricity, indoor pluming and other conveniences they needed to be more
plentiful. This period epitomized man's disregard and contempt towards both human and
non-human life.
As man's insatiable appetite for more grew, his moral respect for even human life eroded
further. Slavery, child labor, the denegration of women and the expendability of human
life in the factories and coalmines all contributed to this erosion of the value of life.
A natural outcome of this devaluation was to further lessen and separate non-human life
from man.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson, wrote that all men are created into the American Declaration
of independence. Although all Americans were supposed to have believed in and obeyed the
extremely strong statement, few really did. Jefferson himself kept slaves after the
signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was not until after the Civil War that
slavery was abolished, and even then, people of other races and the female gender still
were not given equal rights. It was only in the middle of the twentieth century that
segregation ended and the principle of "...all men are created equal..." was legally
recognized. 
Now in the beginning of the twenty-first century, I move that we begin to look at the
lifestyle of animals not differently, but as we did before this whole industrial
revolution, because they have been able to survive millions of years longer than modern
man without harming our earth. In the last one-hundred years man has begun to destroy the
earth with his automobile transportation, coal powered power plants and over indulgence
in almost everything that he desires. 
Non-human animals have always only taken what they needed. Now with our technological
revolution, many great things have been invented and discovered. With all of our
technology and understanding of the human body, some of the things that we use today can
be eliminated, because we do not need them anymore. One, the slaughter and consumption of
millions of pounds of meat such as cows, pigs, chickens, etc. are not necessary anymore.
Man, before and during the beginning of the industrialization of the planet, needed to
take non-human animal life to survive. Man no longer needs to do this to survive. 
Humans have begun this advancement in medicine, which may or may not be best for the
human species itself. Charles Darwin originated the theory of natural selection. His
theory basically states only the strong shall survive, man has began to toy with natural
selection by finding cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria, polio, etc. By doing
this man keeps the weak alive, it is not stated that all humans are valued by how much
money they have to buy life, but that they are created equal and are entitled to the same
treatment regardless of the cost in money. 
All sentient life is entitled to be treated equally just as it was before this
revolution; man and animal used to be at one with each other. Man knows that killing in
excess is unnecessary and can only bring harm to life as a whole. Man created this idea
of speciesism and only man can eliminate this idea. Animal testing should only be
considered justifiable if the same test would be morally permissible if performed on a
human of equal ability. As human animals and non-human animals both travel into the
twenty-first century man seems to question increasingly the actual separation between the
difference in moral worth of non-human animal and he himself should reinstate this take
what you need principle, because animals do suffer just as we do.
Bibliography
ethics;theory and contemporary issues
barbara mackinnon
wadsworth thomas learning 2000