Paper Topic:
animal rights
Running Head : ANIMAL RIGHTS Animal Rights are not Equal to Human Rights Animal Rights are Not Equal to Human Rights Animal rights has been a subject of debate since the 1960 's . Although it is no longer applicable to say that animals exists for our own conveniences , certain issues like the use of animals in research are being raised by liberationists . They condemn speciesism , or the human discrimination to non-human animals , stating that our attitude towards animals have no rational or moral basis . While there are advocates of animal rights , there are
those who realize that there are distinctions between human beings and their non-human counterparts . We shall examine both sides by evaluating the arguments of Peter Singer in his article All Animals are Equal ' for animal rights advocacy , and the arguments of Carl Cohen in his article The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research ' on the other side . After gathering the strengths and weaknesses of both sides , we will address why , despite of agreeing that animals have rights , they are by no means equal to humans
In defending his position that all animals are equal , Singer (1989 first made an analogy on human discrimination . He defined equality as a moral ideal , not a simple assertion of fact ' He added that there is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we need to satisfying their needs and interests . The principle of equality of human beings is not a of an alleged actual equality among humans : it is a prescription of how we should treat humans (Singer , 1989 . He concludes that the equality of non-human animals with humans rests on the same principle . He said that the racist violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of his own race (Singer , 1989 . Similarly for speciesists , human interests takes precedence over the interests of non-human animals . His whole argument for allowing equal rights non-human animals to humans is largely based on Bentham 's (1823 comment
The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny . The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor . It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs , the villosity of the skin , or the termination of the os sacrum , are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate . What else is it that should trace the insuperable line ? Is it the faculty of reason , or perhaps the faculty of discourse ? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational , as well as a more conversable animal , than an infant of a day or a week , or even a month...
Not the Essay You're looking for? Get a custom essay (only for $12.99)
