Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Animal Rights Revolution Cruelty To Part 1 - 1,803 words

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

Animal Rights Revolution - Cruelty to Animals (1) When we take a look at the historical framework, associated with a so-called Animal Rights Movement, it will appear that it was namely during the course of 20 th century's liberating sixties that this movement had achieved a fully legitimate intellectual status. Apparently, the metaphysical essence of animal rights revolution directly relates to the fact that from sixties onwards, the degenerative social and political ideologies began to define existential mode of ever-increased number of White people, throughout the world, which in its turn, had brought about a situation that by 2005, the percentile ratio of Whites in the world has been reduced to 5 %; whereas, in 1900 this ratio accounted for 35 %. In its turn, even a brief demographic analysis of animal rights movement, reveals the fact that 99 % of this movements prominent activists consist of White sophisticates, strongly affiliated with promotion of left-wing agenda. Therefore, discussing this movement as thing in itself could not possibly provide us with the insight onto movements actual essence. Apparently, the concept of animal rights revolution, promoted by extremist White Liberals, simply reflects the fact that, while indulging in variety of decadent practices, these people are being steadily deprived of their existential vitality, which in turn, causes them to confuse the notion of beneficence with the notion of legal right. Right is not something that is being given, but rather taken, Therefore, animals cannot have rights by definition.

This however, does not mean that they can be treated cruelly. In this paper, we will aim at substantiating the validity of this thesis, while exposing historical, ideological and practical aspects of animal rights movement as such that allow us to refer to this movement as to what it really is a socio-political sublimation of White peoples existential inadequacy. (2) Nowadays, many progressive historians suggest that the origins of animal rights movement can be traced as far back as to the middle of 17 th century, when legal preconditions for protection of domestic animals were being incorporated in Massachusetts Bay Colony's Bill of Liberties. These historians however, could not possibly be wrong the laws for protection of animals in Western countries have never been concerned with animals rights, but only with animals well-being. In their book Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America, Francis J. Bremer, Tom Webster provide us with the insight onto original sounding of American 17 th century's bylaws, concerned with animals treatment: No man shall exercise any tyranny or cruelty towards any brute creature which are usually kept for mans use (Bremer & Webster, 2006, p. 637). Apparently, up until comparatively recent times, the cruel treatment of animals in Western countries was never been practiced on a large scale, which is why individuals caught torturing animals used to be rightly considered as being mentally ill.

For any normal individual it would never occur to cruelly treat animals, but not due to animals having rights, but because mentally adequate people are simply incapable of deriving pleasure out of seeing animals suffer. In its turn, this provides us with the insight onto conceptual inconsistency of animal rights activists claims that it namely society's wickedness, which should solely be blamed for animals cruel treatment. Moreover, it points out to the fact that we cannot talk about animal rights movement as socio-political phenomenon of truly global magnitude, the ideological roots of which are imbedded into Western mentality. Therefore, it will not be an exaggeration, on our part, to suggest that the history of this movement begins with activities of so-called Oxford Group, which consisted of liberally minded professors, such as Richard Ryder, Brigid Brophy, Peter Singer and Tom Regan, who besides promoting animal rights, were also promoting the rights of sexual minorities and had greatly contributed to legitimization of feminist movement. In his book Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism, Richard Dudley Ryder reveals that it was namely due to philosophical stance of Singer and Regan that the concept of animal rights had acquired its contemporary sounding: In 1975 Peter Singers Animal Liberation was published in New York and immediately had an impact on a younger generation, triggering a long public debate on the ethical issues raised by speciesism.

Tom Regan became the leading American-born philosopher of animal rights and, in some quarters, the more conservative animal welfare attitudes of the older generation were subjected to fierce analysis and criticism (Ryder, 2000, p. 201). Both: Regan and Singer popularized the idea that was not only that humans had to treat animals as equals, but that the policies, concerned with protection of animals well-being, should overrule the policies concerned with protection of peoples well-being. It was not simply by an accident that the founders of notorious PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco, were not only the close and personal friends of both professors, but also the practitioners of alternative sex-styles apparently, the idea that physical and mental abnormalities derive out of each other, is not altogether deprived of rationale. Right from the time of its founding in 1980, PETA had acquired a reputation of an extremist organization, because while trying to protect animals, organizations members would often resort to utilization of so-called direct action, while having no reservations whatsoever about going as far as intimidating their opponents physically.

In his article Animal-Rights Militants Say They Put Bomb Under UCLA Scientist's Car, which can be found on the web site of The Chronicle for Higher Education, Andrew Mytelka provides us with the insight onto the methods, animal rights activists from PETA resort to, in order to make a public stance: In another attempted attack on a UCLA professor by animal-rights extremists, federal and local authorities are investigating the placement of a bomb on Sunday under a car belonging to an eye researcher at the university. The explosive failed to detonate, according to todays Los Angeles Times. The incident resembles one last summer, in which activists claimed to have tried to bomb the residence of another researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles (Mytelka, 2007). It is important to understand that PETA cannot be referred to as hierarchically structured organization, with clearly defined operational goals. Nevertheless, it does not prevent its activists from defending animal rights in the manner that poses clear danger to society's stability. The governmental authorities in countries with PETAs operational branches have realized this fact long ago, which is why law enforcement agencies often tend to refer to PETA as a terrorist organization.

In her article The Animal Rights Movement in the United States: Some Thoughts About a New Ethics, Ana Recarte states: The activism of the animal liberation organizations is so strong and important, and, in many cases so radical, that some States like Illinois, Alabama, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Oklahoma have enacted specific statutes against animal rights extremists, considering some of their activities, such as the destruction of research facilities (and releasing their animals) a criminal offense (Recarte, 2003, p. 3). PETAs recent activities are being associated with this organization adopting strongly negative attitude towards the concept of animal testing. In the next part of this paper, we will analyze these activities more closely, because such analysis will strengthen our earlier thesis as to the very existence of animal rights movement as an intellectual by-product of neo-Liberal mentality. In its turn, this will add to the logical soundness to this works main idea that this movements actual agenda does not relate to the one that is being officially proclaimed by self-appointed spokesmen for animals welfare. (3) Before we proceed with exposing the sheer absurdity of animal rights activists stance on the issue of animal testing, let us reveal the motivational rationale behind PETAs activities in recent years, as seen by these activists themselves. The article What's Wrong With Testing on Animals? , available on the web site of Global Action Network, provides us with better understanding of such a rationale: Every year, millions of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed in crude tests to evaluate the toxicity of consumer products and their ingredients But the suffering and death of these animals is entirely unnecessary in the making of products like your shampoo, eye shadow, and toilet cleaner. No law requires animal testing of cosmetics or personal care and household cleaning products (GAN, 2008).

No law requires stores like Wal-Mart, to stock its industrial freezers with tons of freshly produced bacon on weekly basis yet, it happens. And the reason to this is simple the objective reality rarely corresponds to the wishful thinking of left-wing dreamers. As representatives of Earths dominant specie, people are at liberty to treat animals in the way they consider it necessary, simply because animals cannot effectively oppose homo sapiens. We like chicken meat? Then, we build chicken farms, so that we can have an unlimited supply of chickens and eggs. Rodents cause damage to our crops?

Then, we simply exterminate rodents in wholesale manner. We think cats, dogs and horses are useful? Then we create even more of these animals pedigrees, by subjecting them to crossbreeding. We need to design a medicinal cure for a particular disease? Then we use animals as objects of scientific experimentation's, because such experiments lay at the core of medicine as an empirical science. It goes without saying, of course, that it would be so much more appropriate to conduct medicinal experiments on illegal Mexicans or on Jamaican drug dealers, but then we would be having even more Liberal bleeding hearts across the nation, as a result.

Whether animal rights activists like it or not - the practice of testing medicine on animals had helped to save the lives of millions of people. Matthew Hartfields article Animal Testing: No Time for Hysteria contains numerous examples of practice of animal testing as such that yields positive results: The efficacy of penicillin, blood transfusions, vaccines or insulin, to name a few, was demonstrated via animal experiments. In the case of penicillin, mice were injected with a lethal dose of streptococci bacteria; half of them were further injected with penicillin. These were the only mice that survived. Penicillin has subsequently saved millions of lives worldwide (Hatfield, 2008).

Therefore, the defenders of animals tendency to be constantly preoccupied with exploring the fetish of animal rights appears to have an essentially psychiatric nature. Given their judgmental attitudes towards the people who happen to have a different opinion about socio-political issues, as opposed to their own, Liberal animal rights activists have a hard time, while looking for soulmates. In its turn, this prompts them to increasingly rely on pets, as animals capable of providing their owners with companionship. As time goes by, animal rights activists grow to subconsciously associate all animals with pets. As a result, they...


Free research essays on topics related to: animal rights movement, animal rights activists, 17 th century, animal testing, treatment of animals

Research essay sample on Animal Rights Revolution Cruelty To Part 1

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com