They believe that animals should be granted the right against suffering at the hands of humans. I believe that it is wrong to think that animals have any rights. To protect animals from suffering by humans should be a matter of animal welfare, not right. According to Jussen, animal rights proposes that it is unacceptable to use animals for any human purpose at all, including the use of dogs and cats as pets, cows and pigs for food, or the use of animals in research and testing. Regardless of how humane, animal rights proponents reject all animal use as exploitation and aim to ban all use of animals by humans.
He points out that there are many physiological traits that separate humans, these traits can be used to justify human discrimination. Since as a society we consider these physical differences a mute point for equality amongst each other, Singer infers that physiological differences cannot be used as a property of any kind of discrimination, that equality is a moral idea; therefore animals should be given the same rights as humans. The situation Singer finds himself in is that speciesism is the cultural norm existent in modern society and in his opinion, contemporary philosophers are failing to make the connection that speciesism justifies human discrimination. He even goes as far to compare the discourse of speciesism to that of former slave owners. Utilitarianism is the main idea that he uses to oppose the idea of specism.
Vivi-section violates animal freedom. And since animals cannot volunteer themselves, they are chosen for scientific purposes with no voice in the matter whatsoever. If us humans go swimming we have to sign waivers but these poor animals are being signed up for torture, which will lead to their inevitable death with no say in the matter. Vivi-section is used for scientific purposes, for finding cures that benefit the human population, sure a few animals will be saved using these cures but in the end it’s the human population that benefits more from the deaths of these helpless animals.
Traditionally, extending federal criminal law and moral legislation reserved to states that revealed many vices of over-criminalization. The common features are excessive unchecked discretion for enforcement authorities and inevitable disparity among similarly situated people. However, other areas of society argue they are against sodomy and same sex marriages because of having traditional views that these laws preserve order in society. Nevertheless, another area certain to bring about argument is gay marriages take away from cultural values and set bad examples to the nation�s youth. Anti-gay groups oppose gay couples adopting children because of having parents of the same sex and this is more harmful than having no parents.
A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
They ask for the truth. They believe that the animal’s lives are lies. They do not value the story that Pi tells them because it is incredible. So, Pi tells them “a story without animals” (Martel 334). Truly, it is a horrible story with gore and cannibalism but very similar to the story with animals.
Individual have diverse feelings for animals. Sorrowfully animal lovers cannot fight for their side, yet they still combat to save animal lives. Animals used as their companions while others view that animals are for scientific survey course only. Several scientists only think how to making their test flourish without knowing that animal they use are being abused and maltreated. Not all tests are relevant to human health.
I understand medication being tested on animals but the cosmetic industry should not test on animals because its animal cruelty, the testing is not accurate, and there are other ways to test products. First reason they should not test on animals is because it’s animal cruelty. In America animal abuse is illegal. Testing on animals is abuse! Everyday millions of animals are locked in small cages giving them only enough room to turn around, and they have makeup put on them, and thousands die from it everyday.
Some think that animals should be afforded the same consideration as human beings. Advocates of animal rights use different approaches to analyze the issue. They agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the community. Advocates believe that those animals are part of the moral community and they should be provided with more than basic needs like food, water, and shelter. Animals cannot have the same rights as humans, but we as humans can take a stand and protect them against wrongful acts of violence.
Ethics on use of animals for research Karina Pereira PSY540/Research Methodology Monday, September 17th, 2012 University of Phoenix Abstract The use of animals in research, teaching and testing is an important ethical and political issue. Much of the discussion about this issue revolves around the relative value, often referred to as 'moral value', of humans and animals. When the needs of animals and humans come into conflict, which takes precedence? Today there exists a wide spectrum of views on this subject, ranging from those concerned with animal 'rights' to those who view animals only as a resource to be exploited. All of these viewpoints have contributed to the development of ethical principles of animal use.