Animal Welfare Research Paper
Introduction
Animal rights supporters believe that it is morally wrong to use or exploit animals in any way and that human beings should not do so. Animal welfare supporters believe that it can be morally acceptable for human beings to use or exploit animals, as long as the suffering of the animals is either eliminated or reduced to the minimum. For people who think like this, the suffering to animals is at the heart of the issue, and reducing the suffering reduces the wrong that is done. Supporters of animal rights don 't think that doing wrong things humanely makes them any less wrong. Do animals need rights?
No one suggests that animals should have all the same rights as human beings. There are many rights that are entirely irrelevant to animals, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, and the right to an education. Accepting that animals have rights restricts human beings, and may even cause people to die who might otherwise have lived. For example, it means that human …show more content…
beings can 't use animals in medical experiments even if this restriction will lead to the death of many human beings from a disease for which a cure might be discovered through animal experimentation. Background/Review of the Literature
Like most animal rights groups, PETA is not an animal welfare organization. Animal welfare groups seek to ensure the humane treatment of animals like a local humane animal shelter. Furthermore, as pointed out by PETA, “Animal rights groups seek equal rights for animals with humans to prevent people from using or owning animals in any way.” Animal welfare organizations have been around for centuries. Animal rights groups emerged in the 1980s with the rise of PETA. Animal rights groups defend their position by claiming many other animals are psychological beings just like humans, with an experiential welfare of their own. Therefore, humans and animals are the same and equal, and we have no right to use animals for food, clothing or medical research
Animal welfare focus on the treatment of animals by promoting and supporting welfare reforms in efforts to make animal treatment more humane, single issue campaigns such as foie gras and fur, and compassionate consumption through the endorsement of grass fed beef and cage free eggs. Some animal welfarists believe that these measures will eventually lead to the abolition of animal use, whilst others do not see animal use as inherently wrong as long as suffering of the animals is eliminated or greatly reduced. Animal welfarists end goal is to ensure humane treatment. What is the importance of the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare? Or is there really a difference? At the core, animal welfare advocates seek to protect animals from practices that are wantonly cruel while accepting certain uses of animals if suffering is prevented or kept at a minimum. In an absolute sense, an animal rights advocate would argue for the complete abolition of any use of any animal for any gain. It is often said animal welfare advocates argue for bigger cages whereas animal rights advocates argue for empty cages. Rationale
What are the differences between animal rights and animal welfare?
Which approach is the most effective?
Is it possible that one could support both animal rights and animal welfare?
Can one strive for abolition whilst still supporting single issue campaigns and welfare reforms?
I feel these questions will help further assist my reader in understanding the distinct differences between animal rights and animal welfare and also have a better out look at the mistreatment of animals. Asking the average person you might not get the enthusiasm you want when speaking on this topic but there is some concern considering we all have pets. Some people really could care less about animals and see them as beneath them, which in most cases is a little harsh. Most people care dearly for their pets but that where that “love” ends, getting people to understand that domesticated or wild animals deserve an equal chance at life to be free just as anyone else. Method and
Design
I have done a lot of preliminary research, and this has always been a topic that I have felt strongly about. Now today there are many groups dedicated to animal rights that I can get information from. This topic is more based off of people’s beliefs. I’m just trying to show people a more humane option. I am trying to determine better alternatives to animal abuse and neglect. I know a good amount about this issue already. According to the National Science Foundation, “about 56% of Americans said they saw “medical training on animals” as “morally accepted in 2013…compared to 2001, when 65% said they saw such testing as acceptable”. However, I know that millions of animals are still mistreated every year. According to PETA, before their deaths “some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed”. They are taken away from their natural environment and are socially deprived, traumatized, and forced to live in empty cages. In order to produce my research paper on this issue, I am going to need to find more evidence, statistics and facts about animal experimentation its negative effects. Furthermore, I will need to find: examples of huge medical developments made without animal experimentation, examples of credible technological alternatives to animal experimentation, in proving how the progression of science without experimentation is more than possible.
Significance and Conclusion
This topic and research matters because it’s morally right for us to treat animals with love and respect. Moreover, we are living in a technological world today, we are getting more and more technologically advanced hence animal experimentation is no longer necessary. It’s a worthy topic because in an activist culture (legalization of gay rights, occupy wall street), issues like this ought to be paid more attention to for the betterment of our world and future, with less cruelty and more peace. The granting of rights to animals such as the abolition of medical research, the dissolution of commercial animal agriculture, sport hunting, and trapping would in effect have both positive and negative consequences. Positive consequences to the granting of animal rights would include lessened cruelty to animals, a greater appreciation of animals, and even a probable decline in the rate at which endangered species decline in number. These positive consequences would have an immense impact on the ecological system of the world and in the end, may even benefit society. Negative consequences to the granting of rights to animals would include not being able to test potential cures of life threatening diseases, not having pets in homes, and the entire population becoming vegetarians. Both choices would incorporate many difficulties in the way of enforcement, but both contain valid consequences worth considering. The question of whether or not animals are intelligent becomes one key argument for animal rights activists in their fight for animal liberation. Observing the pros and cons to this situation also brings the large amount of difficulty in making one concrete decision into perspective. References
Cooper (2012). An Introduction to Animal Law. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Cooper, M. (1987). An introduction to animal law. London: Academic Press.
Katz, Linda S (2013). Animals are the Issue: Library Resources on Animal Issues. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Nuttall, Jon (2013). Moral Questions: An Introduction to Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Taylor, A. (2003). Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate (3rd ed., Vol. 1, p. 220). Canada: Library and Archives Canada Cataloging.
Wolfe, Cary (2012). Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Bio-political Frame. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Animal rights supporters believe that it is morally wrong to use or exploit animals in any way and that human beings should not do so. Animal welfare supporters believe that it can be morally acceptable for human beings to use or exploit animals, as long as the suffering of the animals is either eliminated or reduced to the minimum. For people who think like this, the suffering to animals is at the heart of the issue, and reducing the suffering reduces the wrong that is done. Supporters of animal rights don 't think that doing wrong things humanely makes them any less wrong. Do animals need rights?
No one suggests that animals should have all the same rights as human beings. There are many rights that are entirely irrelevant to animals, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, and the right to an education. Accepting that animals have rights restricts human beings, and may even cause people to die who might otherwise have lived. For example, it means that human …show more content…
beings can 't use animals in medical experiments even if this restriction will lead to the death of many human beings from a disease for which a cure might be discovered through animal experimentation. Background/Review of the Literature
Like most animal rights groups, PETA is not an animal welfare organization. Animal welfare groups seek to ensure the humane treatment of animals like a local humane animal shelter. Furthermore, as pointed out by PETA, “Animal rights groups seek equal rights for animals with humans to prevent people from using or owning animals in any way.” Animal welfare organizations have been around for centuries. Animal rights groups emerged in the 1980s with the rise of PETA. Animal rights groups defend their position by claiming many other animals are psychological beings just like humans, with an experiential welfare of their own. Therefore, humans and animals are the same and equal, and we have no right to use animals for food, clothing or medical research
Animal welfare focus on the treatment of animals by promoting and supporting welfare reforms in efforts to make animal treatment more humane, single issue campaigns such as foie gras and fur, and compassionate consumption through the endorsement of grass fed beef and cage free eggs. Some animal welfarists believe that these measures will eventually lead to the abolition of animal use, whilst others do not see animal use as inherently wrong as long as suffering of the animals is eliminated or greatly reduced. Animal welfarists end goal is to ensure humane treatment. What is the importance of the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare? Or is there really a difference? At the core, animal welfare advocates seek to protect animals from practices that are wantonly cruel while accepting certain uses of animals if suffering is prevented or kept at a minimum. In an absolute sense, an animal rights advocate would argue for the complete abolition of any use of any animal for any gain. It is often said animal welfare advocates argue for bigger cages whereas animal rights advocates argue for empty cages. Rationale
What are the differences between animal rights and animal welfare?
Which approach is the most effective?
Is it possible that one could support both animal rights and animal welfare?
Can one strive for abolition whilst still supporting single issue campaigns and welfare reforms?
I feel these questions will help further assist my reader in understanding the distinct differences between animal rights and animal welfare and also have a better out look at the mistreatment of animals. Asking the average person you might not get the enthusiasm you want when speaking on this topic but there is some concern considering we all have pets. Some people really could care less about animals and see them as beneath them, which in most cases is a little harsh. Most people care dearly for their pets but that where that “love” ends, getting people to understand that domesticated or wild animals deserve an equal chance at life to be free just as anyone else. Method and
Design
I have done a lot of preliminary research, and this has always been a topic that I have felt strongly about. Now today there are many groups dedicated to animal rights that I can get information from. This topic is more based off of people’s beliefs. I’m just trying to show people a more humane option. I am trying to determine better alternatives to animal abuse and neglect. I know a good amount about this issue already. According to the National Science Foundation, “about 56% of Americans said they saw “medical training on animals” as “morally accepted in 2013…compared to 2001, when 65% said they saw such testing as acceptable”. However, I know that millions of animals are still mistreated every year. According to PETA, before their deaths “some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed”. They are taken away from their natural environment and are socially deprived, traumatized, and forced to live in empty cages. In order to produce my research paper on this issue, I am going to need to find more evidence, statistics and facts about animal experimentation its negative effects. Furthermore, I will need to find: examples of huge medical developments made without animal experimentation, examples of credible technological alternatives to animal experimentation, in proving how the progression of science without experimentation is more than possible.
Significance and Conclusion
This topic and research matters because it’s morally right for us to treat animals with love and respect. Moreover, we are living in a technological world today, we are getting more and more technologically advanced hence animal experimentation is no longer necessary. It’s a worthy topic because in an activist culture (legalization of gay rights, occupy wall street), issues like this ought to be paid more attention to for the betterment of our world and future, with less cruelty and more peace. The granting of rights to animals such as the abolition of medical research, the dissolution of commercial animal agriculture, sport hunting, and trapping would in effect have both positive and negative consequences. Positive consequences to the granting of animal rights would include lessened cruelty to animals, a greater appreciation of animals, and even a probable decline in the rate at which endangered species decline in number. These positive consequences would have an immense impact on the ecological system of the world and in the end, may even benefit society. Negative consequences to the granting of rights to animals would include not being able to test potential cures of life threatening diseases, not having pets in homes, and the entire population becoming vegetarians. Both choices would incorporate many difficulties in the way of enforcement, but both contain valid consequences worth considering. The question of whether or not animals are intelligent becomes one key argument for animal rights activists in their fight for animal liberation. Observing the pros and cons to this situation also brings the large amount of difficulty in making one concrete decision into perspective. References
Cooper (2012). An Introduction to Animal Law. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Cooper, M. (1987). An introduction to animal law. London: Academic Press.
Katz, Linda S (2013). Animals are the Issue: Library Resources on Animal Issues. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Nuttall, Jon (2013). Moral Questions: An Introduction to Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Taylor, A. (2003). Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate (3rd ed., Vol. 1, p. 220). Canada: Library and Archives Canada Cataloging.
Wolfe, Cary (2012). Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Bio-political Frame. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com