Animal Right ESSAY
Vu Tien Huy
Animal Rights
Final Paper
This text talks about animal rights. In modern life, people use animals for purposes such as
biomedical, fashion or even recreation. They think that animals shouldn't have rights because they don't
possess three parts of soul and they just care about eating. In addition, because animals don't think or
make decisions and they are not true members of a moral community. Therefore, humans believe that
they can kill animals on demand. On the other hand, from this text, the author asserts that animals also
need rights. Firstly, animals are alive so we need to respect life. Secondly, acting violently towards an
animal may make you act violently towards a human. Thus, we should treat animals humanely
because we are human. Moreover, animals aren't morally self legislative, so they can not possess
rights. Therefore, we can't abuse animals to serve the interests of humans.
Some people believe that animals are dangerous for humans and should be killed for biomedical
research. The important example in this text indicates that no animal can ever commit a crime. The
author said: “Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra? Does a baby zebra have a right not to be
eaten?”(74). This question is very profound and it make us think a lot. It means that animals don't have
thinking so they act instinctively and unconsciously. Therefore, animals can't be killed by their action
The author uses this example against that idea above and also to convince the reader.
There are two possible weaknesses significantly in the author's argument. In the first place, people
talk about animal rights but they still eat them. Based on Snopes.com: “KFC sells equivalent of 736
million chickens annually”. This means it would have to own some
Animal Rights
Final Paper
This text talks about animal rights. In modern life, people use animals for purposes such as
biomedical, fashion or even recreation. They think that animals shouldn't have rights because they don't
possess three parts of soul and they just care about eating. In addition, because animals don't think or
make decisions and they are not true members of a moral community. Therefore, humans believe that
they can kill animals on demand. On the other hand, from this text, the author asserts that animals also
need rights. Firstly, animals are alive so we need to respect life. Secondly, acting violently towards an
animal may make you act violently towards a human. Thus, we should treat animals humanely
because we are human. Moreover, animals aren't morally self legislative, so they can not possess
rights. Therefore, we can't abuse animals to serve the interests of humans.
Some people believe that animals are dangerous for humans and should be killed for biomedical
research. The important example in this text indicates that no animal can ever commit a crime. The
author said: “Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra? Does a baby zebra have a right not to be
eaten?”(74). This question is very profound and it make us think a lot. It means that animals don't have
thinking so they act instinctively and unconsciously. Therefore, animals can't be killed by their action
The author uses this example against that idea above and also to convince the reader.
There are two possible weaknesses significantly in the author's argument. In the first place, people
talk about animal rights but they still eat them. Based on Snopes.com: “KFC sells equivalent of 736
million chickens annually”. This means it would have to own some