Argumentative Essay: Should Animals Have Rights?
Should animals have rights? A lot of people would say no because humans are the top 10% of the food chain,so does this give us the right to take away animal rights? The answer is yes , imagine a society where humans, who are superior to animals, have to abide to the same rules as an animal. Animals should not have a bill of rights because God gave humans superiority over other animals, Animals don't respect our rights, If animals have rights, then so do vegetables, and humans and animals differ greatly.
Animals should not have rights because humans are superior over animals. Humans are in the top 10% of the food chain that is between all the animals in the world. Thus meaning that if animals were given rights then there would be a shortage of food in the world. if there is a shortage of food for humans there would nothing else for us to eat in the world. The animals life expectancy would also grow meaning that the amount of animals would multiply and there would be a huge surplus of animals and no food for the humans to consume.
Out of 7 billion humans on the planet 75% of them have animals for their main source of food. Giving animals would increase the starvation rate in the world, in which is already at an all time high and animals are still being eaten so imagine the starvation rate if humans could no longer consume the animals.
Animals should not have rights also because animals don’t respect our rights. As humans if one …show more content…
person kills another then they are prosecuted and have to face consequences. Animals kill one another in order to eat and there is no consequence, there’s no telling a tiger not to hunt if it’s hungry and hasn’t eaten .
There is no way that animals could communicate with humans verbally so it is very unrealistic to expect for them to succeed in a society where communication is key. Even domesticated animals don’t follow our rules using the restroom in the house, and even not listening to the owner's commands. Ilina Mercer of WMD website stated, “Forgive me if this is too (excuse the expression) catty a point to make, but isn’t that the case with creatures that have no capacity for conscious thought? Unlike human beings, animals are incapable of forming malicious intent – they simply act reflexively, in a stimulus-response manner. Because animals kill with no forethought or conscience, we don’t hold them responsible for their actions in the legal sense, as we would a human being. We agree they were only acting on their animal instincts – they don’t function on a higher plane”. Mercers comment, which proves the point that animals would not have the same mentality as humans when it comes to following the rules or laws that are ratified, is very true. Mercer also quoted, “ Unlike human beings, animals by their nature are not moral agents. They possess no free will, no capacity to tell right from wrong, and cannot reflect on their actions. While they often act quite wonderfully, their motions are merely a matter of conditioning. Since man is a rational agent, with the gift of consciousness and a capacity to scrutinize his deeds and chart his actions, we hold him culpable for his transgressions. A human being’s exceptional ability to discern right from wrong makes him punishable for any criminal depravity”. Mercer is saying that animals have no conscience in their heads telling them that what they are doing is wrong and they have no clue when they are doing right if they don’t get a good job.
Animals shouldn’t be able to have rights because animals and humans are completely different.
Although humans and animals have similar anatomies the two are completely different. Animals are not capable to think like humans and do the same things as humans like talking for example. Animals can’t communicate how would they be able to know what they can and can’t do in the society? Humans are given rights because they are somewhat responsible, but animals have no sense of responsibility because they have no duties in their
lifespan.
Julius ewing of The spectator magazine quoted, “A "right" is a moral principle that governs one's freedom of action in society. This concept is uniquely, and exclusively, human -- man is the only being capable of grasping such an abstraction, understanding his actions within a principled framework and adjusting his behaviour so as not to violate the rights of others. The source of rights is man himself, his nature and his capacity for rational thought. To give rights to creatures that are irrational, a moral and incapable of living in a rights-based environment makes a mockery of the very concept of rights and, ultimately, threatens man.Unlike most mammals or other types of creatures, humans are not born with instinctive, inherited knowledge of how to survive. Rather, man's survival is achieved through reason, which allows him to integrate the facts of his surroundings and apply this knowledge to use and shape the natural world for his preservation and advancement. This includes the use of animals, whether for food, shelter or other necessities”. Ewing agrees that animals live off instincts rather than think about their actions.
Nobel laureate Joseph Murray has also observed, "Animal experimentation has been essential to the development of all cardiac surgery, transplantation surgery, joint replacement, and all vaccinations. Indeed, animal research and clinical study is paramount in the discovery of the causes, cures and treatments of countless diseases, including AIDS and cancer”. If these animals are passing diseases to humans then they need to be consumed before they contract and pass the virus to another person.
Ultimately, animals do not deserve to be given rights because: God gave humans superiority over other animals, Animals don't respect our rights, If animals have rights, then so do vegetables, and humans and animals differ greatly
Animals should not have rights because humans are superior over animals. Humans are in the top 10% of the food chain that is between all the animals in the world. Thus meaning that if animals were given rights then there would be a shortage of food in the world. if there is a shortage of food for humans there would nothing else for us to eat in the world. The animals life expectancy would also grow meaning that the amount of animals would multiply and there would be a huge surplus of animals and no food for the humans to consume.
Out of 7 billion humans on the planet 75% of them have animals for their main source of food. Giving animals would increase the starvation rate in the world, in which is already at an all time high and animals are still being eaten so imagine the starvation rate if humans could no longer consume the animals.
Animals should not have rights also because animals don’t respect our rights. As humans if one …show more content…
person kills another then they are prosecuted and have to face consequences. Animals kill one another in order to eat and there is no consequence, there’s no telling a tiger not to hunt if it’s hungry and hasn’t eaten .
There is no way that animals could communicate with humans verbally so it is very unrealistic to expect for them to succeed in a society where communication is key. Even domesticated animals don’t follow our rules using the restroom in the house, and even not listening to the owner's commands. Ilina Mercer of WMD website stated, “Forgive me if this is too (excuse the expression) catty a point to make, but isn’t that the case with creatures that have no capacity for conscious thought? Unlike human beings, animals are incapable of forming malicious intent – they simply act reflexively, in a stimulus-response manner. Because animals kill with no forethought or conscience, we don’t hold them responsible for their actions in the legal sense, as we would a human being. We agree they were only acting on their animal instincts – they don’t function on a higher plane”. Mercers comment, which proves the point that animals would not have the same mentality as humans when it comes to following the rules or laws that are ratified, is very true. Mercer also quoted, “ Unlike human beings, animals by their nature are not moral agents. They possess no free will, no capacity to tell right from wrong, and cannot reflect on their actions. While they often act quite wonderfully, their motions are merely a matter of conditioning. Since man is a rational agent, with the gift of consciousness and a capacity to scrutinize his deeds and chart his actions, we hold him culpable for his transgressions. A human being’s exceptional ability to discern right from wrong makes him punishable for any criminal depravity”. Mercer is saying that animals have no conscience in their heads telling them that what they are doing is wrong and they have no clue when they are doing right if they don’t get a good job.
Animals shouldn’t be able to have rights because animals and humans are completely different.
Although humans and animals have similar anatomies the two are completely different. Animals are not capable to think like humans and do the same things as humans like talking for example. Animals can’t communicate how would they be able to know what they can and can’t do in the society? Humans are given rights because they are somewhat responsible, but animals have no sense of responsibility because they have no duties in their
lifespan.
Julius ewing of The spectator magazine quoted, “A "right" is a moral principle that governs one's freedom of action in society. This concept is uniquely, and exclusively, human -- man is the only being capable of grasping such an abstraction, understanding his actions within a principled framework and adjusting his behaviour so as not to violate the rights of others. The source of rights is man himself, his nature and his capacity for rational thought. To give rights to creatures that are irrational, a moral and incapable of living in a rights-based environment makes a mockery of the very concept of rights and, ultimately, threatens man.Unlike most mammals or other types of creatures, humans are not born with instinctive, inherited knowledge of how to survive. Rather, man's survival is achieved through reason, which allows him to integrate the facts of his surroundings and apply this knowledge to use and shape the natural world for his preservation and advancement. This includes the use of animals, whether for food, shelter or other necessities”. Ewing agrees that animals live off instincts rather than think about their actions.
Nobel laureate Joseph Murray has also observed, "Animal experimentation has been essential to the development of all cardiac surgery, transplantation surgery, joint replacement, and all vaccinations. Indeed, animal research and clinical study is paramount in the discovery of the causes, cures and treatments of countless diseases, including AIDS and cancer”. If these animals are passing diseases to humans then they need to be consumed before they contract and pass the virus to another person.
Ultimately, animals do not deserve to be given rights because: God gave humans superiority over other animals, Animals don't respect our rights, If animals have rights, then so do vegetables, and humans and animals differ greatly