Animals are Mistakenly Believed to Have Rights - Literature review Example

Animals are Mistakenly Believed to Have Rights Introduction The past century has seen the status of animals change from of no rights where the owner would treat animals in whichever ways he deemed fit, to one in which there is a heated debate of whether animals have rights like humans. As Roleff & Hurley (1999) note, before the early 1800s, animals were seen as property without feelings whose purpose was to be used by humans for food, clothing and labor. The attitudes that people now have towards animals are shaped by their notions towards animals’ aesthetic and symbolic value, their similarity to us and their usefulness. Do animals really have rights? At the heart of the current animal rights controversy is the moral equivalency of humans and animals. The never-ending question is whether animals have the same moral status like that of humans. Animals are mistakenly believed to have rights. Animal rights activists argue that it is immoral and inhume to eat meat, wear clothing made with animal products or even use animals in research or entertainment because they have the same rights we humans have. This essay will contend that animals do not have rights and it is okay to use animals as long as they are treated humanely and their suffering kept to a minimum. This is because, as this paper will show, animals do not have rights – only humans can possess rights. In addition, animals are humans’ property and the use of animals for research has great benefits for both humans and animal. Furthermore animal use can be humane. Animals do not have rights: only humans can possess rights Locke (199)7 rightly argues that “rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice” (p. 35). Most of the animal rights advocates argue on animals having rights from the point of view that if men feel pain, then animals also do and therefore they have rights. This argument is inaccurate because men having rights is not dependent on their ability to feel pain but rather in their ability to think (Locke, 1997). All human beings are free to use their minds to think and guide their actions and choices. This is not true of animals because they do not survive by rational thought. They do not have the ability to reason, neither can they learn and observe a code of ethics. Animals survive by predation and they do not have the power to deal with their own species. Animal rights activism should be about the humane treatment of animals but not the equal rights of animals and humans. As Locke (1999) argues, animal rights movements drive their campaigns to imply animalistic treatment of humans. Similarly, Smith (1996) says that animal rights activists do not believe in human rights. While both human beings and animals can see, smell, hear, feel and taste; animals do so for insecure survival while humans do so to enhance their quality of life (Smith, 1996). For anyone to argue that they can’t see the difference between humans and animals is to be phony. Use of animals in Medical Research Locke (1997, p. 36) says that “to claim that man’s use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no rights of our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality.” What is unethical is inventing a bill of rights for animals at the expense of humans. Scientists have solved many medical complications, developed vaccines and cured many diseases through animal medical experimentation (American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 1999). Biomedical research is needed today to understand causes and treatment of diseases as well as developing vaccines and testing chemical safety. Almost every person that has used conventional medicine or vaccines has benefitted from animal medical experimentation. Locke (1999) laments that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) insistence that they would be against use of animals in research even it its use would provide a cure for AIDS. According to the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) (1999), animals benefit from these animal experiments as well. For instance, discovery a vaccine for Feline leukemia virus that causes illness in cats. Understanding the procedures used in animal medical experimentation could help eliminate fears of pain and suffering the animal rights activists point to. Care and empathy is used in these processes and there is the use of anesthesia where surgery is performed. Most research projects do not involve pain and in instances where pain is present, it is alleviated through the use of anesthetic drugs (Roleff & Hurley (1999). Researchers are aware that pain causes stress in the animals which can impact on the outcome of the experiment. The law permits the use of animals for research purposes. This makes the use of animals for medical experimentation lawful. Use of animals in research has led to cure of deadly diseases. Humans could benefit from animal-to-human organ transplants. Xenotransplants hold the key to replacing organs as well as curing deadly diseases (Williams, 1996). They could be a possible answer to the thousands of people in need of organ donations. Scientists say that baboon and pigs are good kidney donors for humans. Scientists have been, and are still experimenting on ways to insert human genes in possible animal donors in order for the organs to produce proteins that the human body will recognize as human (Williams, 1996). Animals are humans’ properties “Animals are groceries, they are leather and fur coats…that is their purpose (Smith, 1996, p. 39). Although those in favor of the evolutionary theory argue that animals can learn, they cannot make any choices about what to do with their lives. Smith (1996) assert that only human beings have a purpose of life for themselves and other things they dominate. In fact, he argues that there are only two entities in the world: people and property. Animals are there for human beings to use. The Christian view confirm that animals were put on earth by God to be used and dominated by man. The biblical story of creation show that human beings are created in the image of God and that they are created to have dominion over the rest of the creation (Roleff & Hurley, 1999). Animals should be bred for human consumption. Although vegetarians argue that animals should not be killed for food, the process of agriculture kills come animals like insects and worms. Animal use can be humane As Grandin (1998) argues, slaughtering can be humane. He says that there have been improvements in slaughtering animals in that women have been proved to be gentler with animals. There have been other ways that have proved humane in slaughtering animals. Animals in the wild killing each other doe not observe humane ways of killing each other. This means that animals dying in the wild encounter more pain that those slaughtered by humans. This is because death at the slaughter house is quicker and less painful as compared to deaths in the wild. Grandin (1998, p. 162) argues that “the animals we raise for food would have never lived at all if we had not raised them.” Animals used for entertainment in Zoos are not abused, rather Zoos preserve endangered species. “Conservationists warn that within a generation, one out of five species living on earth today may be gone forever, for all too many animals, Zoos may be the last hope” (Roleff & Hurley , 1999, p. 188). Animals in the wild killing each other doe not observe humane ways of killing each other. This means that animals dying in the wild encounter more pain that those slaughtered by humans. This is because death at the slaughter house is quicker and less painful as compared to deaths in the wild. Grandin (1998, p. 162) argues that “the animals we raise for food would have never lived at all if we had not raised them.” According to Roleff & Hurley (1999), fur farms are humane; they observe good animal husbandry and management practices that are humane to the animals. The animals are provided with food, water and shelter. In addition, they are protected from diseases and any form of suffering through veterinary services. Animals in the wild do not have these advantages, thus, animals bred in farms have better life than their counterparts in the wild. Animals have rights, their use is immoral and inhumane PETA (2011, Online) states that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse in any way.” This abolitionist animal rights movement requires a complete rejection of production and consumption of animals for food or fashion or the indirect consumption in the form of research, entertainment or companion (Wrem, 2012). On the contrary Smith (1996) emphatically says that “Animals are groceries, they are leather and fur coats…that is their purpose” (Smith, 1996, p. 39) Wilson (1997) argues that there is no fundamental difference between humans and animals – “it seems quite illogical, then, to believe in a morality that treats humans and animals in fundamentally different ways” (p. 20). However, as Francione (2009) asserts, animal life is of a lesser value than that of human life and it is morally acceptable to use them as resources for human beings as long as they are treated humanely and they are not exposed to unnecessary suffering. The issue here should not be whether or not we use animals as human resources but the manner in which we use them. Consumers would be willing to do anything that reduces animal suffering (Leslie & Sustein, 2007). Conclusion Animals feeling pain does not mean that they have the same rights as humans. On the other hand the fact that humans have rights does not permit them to expose animals to suffering. The fact that animals feel pain means that they should be treated humanely, but it does not mean that they should not be used for their milk, fur, meat and companion (Cohen & Regan, 2001). The value of humans cannot be compared to that of animals, however, animals do not deserve pain and suffering. Therefore, animals do not have rights and it is okay to use them as long as they are treated humanely and their suffering kept to a minimum References American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (1998). Use of animals in biomedical research: understanding animal science. Cohen, C. & Regan T. (2001). The animal rights debate. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. USA. Francione, G. L. (2009). Animal welfare and the moral value of non-human animals. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 6 (1), 1-13. Grandin, T. (1998). Thinking like animals in intimate nature: the bond between women and animals, in Roleff, T. L. & Hurley, J. A. (1999). The Rights of Animals. Greenhaven Press Inc. San Diego, USA. Leslie, J. & Sustein, C. R. (2007). Animal rights without controversy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 70, 117-138. Locke, E. (1997), Animal ‘rights’ and the new man haters, in Roleff, T. L. & Hurley, J. A. (1999). The Rights of Animals. Greenhaven Press Inc. San Diego, USA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (2011). Uncompromising stands on animal rights. Retrieved on April 22, 2015. http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/ Roleff, T. L. & Hurley, J. A. (1999). The Rights of Animals. Greenhaven Press Inc. San Diego, USA. Smith, L. N. (1996), Animals are property. The libertarian enterprise, in Roleff, T. L. & Hurley, J. A. (1999). The Rights of Animals. Wilson, P. (1997). Animal rights: a revolution of compassion. Speech given the Rotary Club of Cortland, New York, April, 1997. Wrem. C. (2012). Abolitionist animal rights: critical comparisons and challenges within the animal rights movement. Interface, 4 (2), 438-458. Name: Section: Research Topic Animal Rights Thesis Animals do not have rights and it is okay to use them as long as they are treated humanely and their suffering kept to a minimum. SUPPORT Section 1 Animals do not have rights Idea 1 Only humans can possess rights Sources Idea 2 Human treatment of animals Idea 1 – Locke (1997) “Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice” (p. 35) Idea 2 – Smith 1996 While both human beings and animals can see, smell, hear, feel and taste; animals do so for insecure survival while humans do so to enhance their quality of life Idea 3 Idea 4 SUPPORT Section 2 Use of Animals in Medical Research Idea 1 Animal rights cannot be at the expense of human rights Sources Idea 2 Medical benefits of animal research Idea 1 – Locke (1997) “To claim that man’s use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no rights of our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality.” (p. 36) Idea 2 - American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (1999) Scientists have solved many medical complications, developed vaccines and cured many diseases through animal medical experimentation Idea 3 - Roleff & Hurley (1999) Most research projects do not involve pain and in instances where pain is present, it is alleviated through the use of anesthetic drugs Idea 4 - Williams (1996) Xenotransplants hold the key to replacing organs as well as curing deadly diseases Idea 3 Research projects do not involve pain Idea 4 Humans could benefit from animal-to-human organ transplants SUPPORT Section 3 Animals are humans’ properties Idea 1 Animals are there for human’s use Sources Idea 2 Creation story confirm man’s dominion over animals Idea 1- Smith (1996) “Animals are groceries, they are leather and fur coats…that is their purpose” (p. 39) Idea 2 – Roleff & Hurley, 1999 The biblical story of creation show that human beings are created in the image of God and that they are created to have dominion over the rest of the creation Idea 3 Idea 4 SUPPORT Section 4 Animal use can be humane Idea 1 Slaughtering can be humane Sources Idea 2 Animals used in Zoos are not abused Idea 1 – Grandin (1998) there have been improvements in slaughtering animals in that women have been proved to be gentler with animals Idea 2 – Roleff & Hurley (1999) “Conservationists warn that within a generation, one out of five species living on earth today may be gone forever, for all too many animals, Zoos may be the last hope” (p. 188) Idea 3 – Grandin (1998) Death at the slaughter house is quicker and less painful as compared to deaths in the wild. Idea 3 Wild animals do not kill each other humanely Idea 4 COUNTERARGUMENTS Animals have rights; their use is immoral and inhumane Idea 1 No difference between animals and humans Sources Rebuttal animal life is of a lesser value than that of humans Idea 1 - Wilson (1997) there is no fundamental difference between humans and animals – “it seems quite illogical, then, to believe in a morality that treats humans and animals in fundamentally different ways” (p. 20) Idea 1 – Fancione (2009) Animal life is of a lesser value than that of human life and it is morally acceptable to use them as resources for human beings as long as they are treated humanely and they are not exposed to unnecessary suffering Idea 2 - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (2011) “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse in any way.” (para 4) Idea 2 – Smith (1996) “Animals are groceries, they are leather and fur coats…that is their purpose” (p. 39) Idea 2 Animals should not be used Rebuttal Animals’ purpose is to be used by humans Idea 3 Rebuttal Read More