Animals Shouldn't Be Given Human Rights

831 Words4 Pages
Human-rights to Animals Animals are our friends and family, but can they really gain human rights? In the natural world, all creatures have a right to things it can take by force or forcibly defend from being taken. As brutal as this is, it is evidently true. The animal rights philosophy all sums to one simple concept: Our lives, and the lives of our families contain no more moral value than an animal’s. Even though we should always treat animals with the highest standards of welfare possible, giving them rights is ludicrous. There is no moral contract between our species and the animals, nor can animals make moral choices. By not extending rights to animals, society preserves its individual autonomy, health, and profound feel of justice. Animals possess the inability to form a contract with humans. The exchange of words and language reifies the contract together and makes any change necessary to make the contrast mutually beneficial. Since animals cannot communicate with society, they cannot be part of a contract. The nature of contracts being just means that we have no obligation to give them these rights for three reasons. First, animals don’t benefit from us testing on them, using their fur, and eating them as food, which means there is no mutual benefit for them to rationally agree on. Second, humans wouldn’t benefit from a contract with animals since we already have rights. Third, the way we treat animals is not reciprocal, since animals don’t perform tests on us or use our skin for clothing. In the end, it would mean that if both of our groups form a contract together, our obligations would naturally differ. Rights given to animals would tremendously downgrade our human welfare. By giving animals human-rights, we wouldn’t be able to test our unstable products on them which would then demote consumer-safety. There are many types of toxicity tests
Open Document