NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? , nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes... (Bentham, p. 15) Disputes took place in the 19 th century. Arthur Schopenhauer was a representative of opposition. He did not consider that animals should be treated taking into account moral aspects. Schopenhauer thought that humans are the only ones who have feelings. From the other point of view, Henry Salt stated that animals should be given certain rights.
He revealed it in 1892, in his influential book Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress. Most of all, he was a former of the Humanitarian League that spoke for banning hunting as a sport. In 1875, the British law forbade research on animals. But researches were renewed during the wars. It is known that the Nazis continued to run experiments on animals. The modern animal rights movement began in the early 1970 s.
A group of Oxford philosophers started social movement, and later, it was spread all over the world. The object of Oxford philosophers study was the moral status of living organisms. They argued that the moral status should not be the main parameter to measure rights and freedoms of one life form and others. One of the philosophers, the psychologist, Richard D. Ryder, made a great contribution in the development of the conception. In 1970, he wrote the influential book Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-humans.
There he revealed the basic arguments, based on utilitarianism. The book was considered as the Bible for leaders of the animal rights movement. Later, in the 1980 s and 1990 s, people of different occupation joined the movement. Among them there were a lot of theologians, lawyers, physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, veterinarians, pathologists etc.
It gave an opportunity to begin integrated study of the problem of animal rights. For a long history of human animal relationship several approaches to the problem were introduced by scientists. Among them there were utilitarian, rights-based, abolitionist and others. Peter Singer was known as the supporter of animal liberation and the ideological founder of modern animal-liberation movement. His approach is based on utilitarian principle. He wrote in his book Animal Liberation that humans build their consideration on their ability to experience suffering.
Intelligent and moral aspects are not always the only objects of human consideration. But animals also express suffering. They should not be excluded from such consideration. Such form of discrimination is known as "speciesism. " Singer proved his point of view with the Argument from Marginal Cases.
He pointed that rights should not be given to humans only based on the quality they possess. Because not only animals cannot possess some quality but some humans may have lack of quality (such as ability to enter a social contract or rationality); so, they should not have rights? Most of all, Peter Singer emphasized that though small children have lack of qualities they are granted rights. Singer pointed that human attitude towards animals is not justified, because benefits to humans cannot be compared and paid back with animal suffering. Singer and senior US Judge Richard Posner had a lot of debates. Posner had another approach to the problem.
He did not start with the idea that consideration of pain is equal, but stated that people prefer their own consideration of pain. Its more like they feel sorry for an infant than for a dog or other animal. Singers reasons were based on examples from ethical or sexual discrimination. He showed that homosexuals, women and ethical minorities had no equal rights in the former societies. They were justified using moral intuition.
Posner replied that the difference between humans based on race, sex, or sexual orientation is not equal to the difference in rights of animals. Most of all, ethical arguments may be opposite to moral instinct. Posner and Singer's were considered to be soft utilitarian and hard utilitarian. The terms hard and soft meant logic arguments with ethical approach in contrast to moral intuition. Posner came to conclusion that his point of view is supported by many, most of all by Americans.
He did not deny that animals feel pain and that to cause pain without a reason is brutal. Intuition cannot be made a stage in a logical argument. Kind attitude towards animals should not be based on determining equality between the pains of animals and of people. It should be based only on ones intuition. Tom Regan is considered to be a representative of rights-based approach. In his work The Case for Animal Rights and Empty Cages he tried to prove that all "subjects-of-a-life" should be given rights like humans that should be based on their possession of certain cognitive abilities, like the moral rights of humans.
Tom Regan argued that marginal case humans and some non-humans should be considered moral patients. Animals in this position should be treated as individuals. Such approach proposes some direct duties for men. First of all, people should refuse to breed animals for food. Then they should abolish animal experimentation, and commercial hunting. But there is a contradiction in these statements.
First of all, only humans will be able to follow the rules. Other animals will not take into account the rights for animals treated like moral patient humans. Most of all Regan was sure that people should treat animals, first of all, like persons. The scientist developed the ideas of Kant.
According to Kantian ideas, the moral law could not be applied to animals. People should show compassion. Though Singer and Regan approaches differ but they have common practical application of their conceptions. For example, they stated that it is necessary to carry out some forms of animal testing, etc. Opponents of right-based approach, such as Carl Cohen, professor of philosophy, rejected giving personhood to animals.
He wrote that people should set certain rules of duty that should govern all. Carl Cohen said that it is impossible to apply such rules without conflicts between the interests of different people. His approach was known as rights require obligations. Cohen did not agree with Peter Singer's conception that moral judgments should be the basis for determining who is awarded rights. Roger Scruton, the British philosopher, added that rights should be implemented to those who are able to understand them. For example, he did not agree with abolishment of foxhunting.
The scientist was sure that it makes humans protect the habitat in which foxes live. According to an abolitionist point view, non-human animals may be granted with rights by directly undermined their property status. Gary Francione's wrote Introduction to Animal Rights, where he pointed that equality based on the interests of peoples property against their own interests is absurd. Non-human animals should be granted with the basic rights. Gary Francione considered sentience the only valid determinant for moral standing.
Francione stated that there was no real animal-rights movement only an animal-welfarism movement. Francione was one of those who worked with animal-rights law for the Animal Rights Law Project. The scientist spoke for the abolition of the property status of animals. Francione did not find logical sequence in humans deeds. He said that people regard dogs and cats as family members, but still kill cows, chickens, and pigs for food. A lot of great men made a contribution to the propagation of animal rights movement.
One of them was Mahatma Gandhi. He spoke against violation of human as well as animal rights. He said that "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. " At the same time, there were a lot of reasons against animal rights. Robert Bidinotto was anti-environmentalist and considered that strict observance of animal rights forbids even direct protection of people and their values...
Nowadays, animals are protected under the law. Animal rights protect them from cruelty to animals. The rights regulate the keeping of animals in cities and on farms and hoe they should be transit internationally, as well as quarantine and inspection provisions. The laws forbid unnecessary physical harm to animals. There are some articles in the law that regulate the use of animals as food. It is allowed to create a charitable trust and take care of a particular animal after the death of a keeper.
But several movements in the UK demand the British parliament to set rewarding for the best protection of animals. The laws regulate duties of care, feeding and treating towards animals. It was a great step in ensuring an animals welfare. Animal keepers were given with duties towards the animal. The bill was supported by an RSPCA campaign. Animal rights movements are very popular nowadays.
Though they very in some rules they posted but all them were created to protect non human animals from being used or regarded as property by humans. They are radical social movements that focuses not only on animal rights but also on animal welfare. Most of all, they regulate co-existance of human beings within the moral community. The movements speak against animals being regarded legally or morally as property. It should be pointed that people has become more conscious about animal rights.
For example, Animal law courses are taught in many law schools in different countries. Some senior legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz, Laurence Tribe and others support the idea of giving personhood to animals. In Seattle, Great Ape Project was introduced to the United Nations. It was proposed to adopt a Declaration on Great Apes.
According to the project, great apes such as gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees and bonobos should be included in a "community of equals." So, it would give them certain rights and protect their three basic interests: the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture. It is the first step made by animal rights lawyers toward granting rights to other animals. People of the 21 st generation are considered to be people of high moral value. They have taught to live alongside with their former enemies without wars.
Could they co-exist peacefully with other forms of life? It is evident they try. Bibliography: Jean-Jacques. , Rousseau. Discourse on Inequality.
Broadview Press, 2003. Jeremy, Bentham. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Adamant Media Corporation, 2005. J. , Oswald.
The Cry of Nature or an Appeal to Mercy and to Justice on Behalf of the Persecuted Animals. Mellen Animal Rights Association. Mellen press, 2000. M.
E. , Seligman. Depression and Learned Helplessness. The Psychology of Depression: Contemporary Theory and Research. Winston and Sons.
Co. , 1974. R. G. , Frey. Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals, New York Press, 1980. S. , Harris. The End of Faith.
Religion, Terror, And The Future Of Reason. W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.
Free research essays on topics related to: animal rights movement, human animals, peter singer, point of view, animal liberation
Research essay sample on Animal Rights Movement Point Of View
