essay on animals also have rights

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Environment Animal Rights

Animals Also Have Rights: the Importance of Recognizing Animal Rights

Table of contents, the evolution of human-animal relationships, defining animal rights, ethical considerations, scientific insights and sentience, legal protection and conservation.

• Francione, G. L. (2019). Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. Retrieved from http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
• Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
• Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York Review/Random House.
• Wise, S. M. (2004). Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Basic Books.
• Bekoff, M. (2013). Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation. University of Chicago Press.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Garbage Problems
• Global Warming
• Endangered Species

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

• Animal Rights and Welfare Laws Words: 1194
• Animal Rights: What of Animal Cloning? Words: 645
• Animal Rights and Scientific Researches Words: 554
• Animal Rights: Humans and Other Living Creatures Words: 568
• Research Involving Animals: The Animal Rights Debate Words: 1918
• Animal Rights: Kantian vs. Utilitarian Views Words: 666
• The Use of Animals in Scientific Research Words: 1117
• Ecofeminism and Fight for Animal Rights Words: 2522
• Should Animals Be Used for Research? Words: 1977
• Animal Use in Biomedical Research Words: 2711
• The Use of Animals in Laboratory Research Words: 1395
• The Use of Animals in Biomedical Research Words: 1448
• Using Animals in Medical Research Words: 2048
• Protection of Animals and Humans From Cruelty Words: 879
• The Case for Animal Rights Words: 672
• The Universality of Human Rights Words: 580
• Animal Testing: Use of Animal in Biomedical Research Words: 2138
• Human Rights in Sociology and Philosophy Words: 2210
• The Ethical Side of Animal Testing Words: 1151
• Is Animal Testing Ethical: Essay Example Words: 1655

Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons

• Introduction

Use of Animals for Scientific Research Purposes

Moral issues in the use of animals for scientific research, works cited, should animals have the same rights as humans essay introduction.

Concern over the indiscriminate use of animals by humans has gained prominence since the latter half of the twentieth century, with the increase in the insensitive use of animals for scientific research and the increased availability of literature raising moral concerns over this insensitive use of animals.

The issue of animal rights is a part of the broader vision on the rights of every living being to a more equitable existence on planet earth. This broader vision calls for a better appreciation of the limits of human growth and the need to stop the misuse of other life forms and life sustaining resources of mother earth.

There is no denying that the fact that the issue of animal rights is a complex issue, but it is essential that greater wisdom prevails for the greater good of humans and animals as a component of other life forms on earth.

There is hardly any logic in the arguments for the use of animals for scientific research based on their similarity to humans, but at the same time denies these same animals basic rights that humans enjoy by stressing the differences that exist with humans.

In essence the issue of providing rights to animals is a question of righting the balance that has tilted further away in favor of humans with particular emphasis on their misuse for scientific research purposes. (1)

The extent of use of animals in scientific research around the world can be gauged from the understanding that in the United Kingdom more than 2.6 million rodents, rabbits, cats, dogs, ferrets, pigs, sheep, primates, and birds were utilized in 2002 for some form or other of scientific research. At the end of the research these animals are destroyed. This means that approximately four animals are being destroyed for every human child born. (2). The situation does not get any better in the United States of America. According to estimates of the Humane Society almost 25 million animals are used every year for research, testing and educational purposes in the United States of America, with almost all the animals used for testing and research eventually put to death. (3).

The issue is not just in the number of animals used for scientific research, but also in the pain and suffering that these animals undergo, all in the name of improving the quality of life of humans, or in attempting to develop life-saving products for humans.

In such scientific research, invasive and non-invasive means of testing is employed that put the animals under severe suffering and stress. Examples of this abound.

For the study of impact of long-term misuse of drugs like methamphetamine, animals like mice are made to ingest methamphetamine for a period of time and suffer the debilitating effects of the drug, so that an understanding of the neurological impact can be ascertained by studying the brain of the animal after it has been killed.

Again in research for drugs used to fight cancer, tumors are introduced into the animals and then the drugs given to study potency and toxicity, while the animal suffers the intense pain that these tumors can produce. Such painful research is justified in the name of the requirement for enhancing the quality of treatment for several human diseases and conditions.

Yet, it is a well established fact that translating the evidence found in animals into treatment value for humans is seldom easy given the inherent structural and functional differences. According to Dr. Richard Klausner, the Director of the National cancer Institute “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse…

We have cured mice of cancer for decades- and it simply didn’t work in humans”. (4). In essence the benefits that humans derive from the indiscriminate use of animals for scientific purposes are marginal. The issue is further compounded when the morality of this indiscriminate use of animals is taken into consideration.

Humans and animals are among the life forms found on earth, with animals the more developed animal form. Development needs to be based not just on the better ability to think, but on the ability to reason and act in a just manner that is considered to be the characteristic of a well developed human society.

Such just and consistent thinking requires that humans treat animals in a more respectable manner, which gives the means and the right to flourish and not be tortured or treated in a cruel manner that is degrading to their very existence, as is seen in methods employed in scientific testing. (5).

The primary moral issue in the issue use of animals for scientific research lies in the principal of justice to treat all cases alike, which in this case are humans and non-human animals. It is considered wrong to use humans for scientific research without their consent. Humans and animals are considered to have comparable physiological and psychological capacities.

Given this dimension then it should be wrong to use animals in scientific research without their consent. Their inability to give consent coupled with their dependence on the kindness and compassion of humans for their very welfare makes it even more morally demanding on humans to avoid the indiscriminate use of animals, as in scientific research, for the intended benefit of humans. (6).

Animals are sentient in that they have the capacity to suffer, or experience joy and happiness. Yet humans subject animals to suffering, denying experiences of joy and happiness, which they would not subject their fellow beings to. This is being discriminatory or ‘speciesist’, which is morally irrespective of any benefits that may accrue to humans through the use of animals in scientific research. (7).

The moral theme behind this equal treatment necessity stems from the saga of that has seen racial and gender discrimination among humans being gradually removed, as it was considered morally wrong to have unequal segments of human society and the full understanding and creation of equal human rights. It is the natural extension of this that is the moral basis for the claim of removal of discrimination in the treatment of animals. The history of racial discrimination and ill treatment makes for suitable comparison to the ill treatment of animals.

Early in the twentieth century eugenics the illegitimate progeny of evolutionary genetics found sway in Europe and America, because of the already prevalent racist attitudes in the upper echelons of society. Eugenics called for the breeding to be permitted only among the best stock, which would gradually see the extinction of the weaker races to give way for the nobler varieties of humans.

This view was not a just a figment of creation of a few of the aristocratic class, but had a host of well known individuals including Winston Churchill as believers in the removal of feeble minded ands insane classes of people. An entry in the diary of Virginia Woolf in 1915 reads as, “On the towpath we met and had to pass a long line of imbeciles.

It was perfectly horrible. They should certainly be killed”. (8). Again from H. G. Wells, who supported eugenics, “those swarms of blacks, brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people …. will have to go”. (8). It was such beliefs that led to the enforced sterilization and forced research on fellow humans in Germany under the rule of Adolf Hitler.

The scientific findings of some of this forced and cruel research still remain valid to science, but the cruel treatment humans brought about moral revulsion, which saw the demise of eugenics. This is despite emerging controversial evidence that there may be a genetic link to intelligence, creativity, sexuality and criminality. (8). So much for the much flaunted superior intelligence of all humans over animals.

Within the human species there exists the possibility of different levels of intelligence and yet our morals of justice and equality do not allow us to discriminate against them. Animals occupy a lower rung in the evolutionary ladder, but demand our attention to prevent their indiscriminate use in scientific research.

It is less than a century since the belief in eugenics existed and now leads to moral revulsion. Remaining blinded to the indiscriminate use of animals in scientific research could lead to moral revulsion of our times.

Racial and gender discrimination is no longer morally acceptable in human society. The moral philosophy of egalitarian society does not emanate from the fact that all races equal in all capabilities and so too with the gender.

The principal of equality does not describe the actual equality of every human being rather it is a prescription for the manner in which all humans should be treated. The moral equality of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian system of ethics is based on the formula “each to count for one and none for more than one”. (9).

In other words the interests of every being are equal to the interests of every other being and the interests of no being supersedes the other. Such thinking is reflected in the later utilitarian Henry Sidgwick words “the good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view (if I may say so) of the Universe, than the good of any other”. (9).

Hence it is not the actual equality that matters in human rights, but the underlying principle that all humans are to be treated equally. It is this underlying principle that needs to be extended to animals as a group. There is no claim that this group be given all the rights that were received by the earlier discriminated groups of races and gender, like voting rights.

These rights are even acceptably denied to children as they do not need such a right and will not be able to make proper just such a right. Without equating animals to children, animals as a group do not require such rights as voting, but the do require basic right to live with dignity, as is required by the different kinds of animals that make up the animal kingdom.

The right to live a life that allows them to enjoy the joys, happiness, and sorrows that is linked to a natural existence, and not to suffer a caged and tortured life that is put to an end, when their utility is believed to be over, as is the case with animals that become part of scientific research.

Bentham brings into relevance another aspect that calls for providing animals rights and that is the aspect of suffering that animals are subjected too. He points out the issue is not that they cannot reason, nor can they talk, “but can they suffer?”(9). It is this vital characteristic that animals can suffer that gives animals the right to equal consideration.

They cannot express themselves and are totally dominated by humans. This makes them wholly depended on the compassion of humans for equal consideration. The moral basis for the argument against abortion is that the nascent life in the womb is capable of feeling the pain and suffering associated with abortion. In addition the fetus is incapable expressing itself and hence is dependent on external voices to express its rights.

It is the same analogy here with animals used for scientific research. They suffer but cannot express themselves and need outside expression of their rights. Since the animal suffers there is no moral justification for refusing to consider the suffering that is occurring. If the animal were not capable of suffering there would be no moral basis for animal rights. Sentience is thus the defensible boundary that is breached by researchers using animals.

The racist breaches the principle of equality by providing greater consideration for the members of the same race, while the use of animals in research stems from “speciesism”, wherein the interests of the human species to which the researcher belongs is given superiority to the needs of any other member of the animal kingdom. Racism has gradually died out or is in its deathbed. “Speciesism “needs to follow racism in a similar manner. (9).

Should Animals Have the Same Rights as Humans? Essay Conclusion

Animals are used in huge numbers for scientific research. Such animals go through a painful existence and early death as a result of being subjects to scientific research. By subjecting them to such cruelty, animals are being denied the basic rights that are due to them as fellow being on this planet.

This discrimination against their sentience and as a result of speciesism demonstrated by humans needs to come to an end and will happen, when the rights of animals are recognized to and their indiscriminate use in scientific research comes to an end.

Ulrich, E. Roger. “ANIMAL RIGHTS, ANIMAL WRONGS AND THE QUESTION OF BALANCE”. Psychological Science, 2.3 (1991): 197-201.

Bowring, Finn. “Animal Wrongs”. New Humanist.

Miller, Talia. “Scientific Research Targeted by Anti-Animal Testing Activists”. 2006. NEWS HOUR EXTRA.

“Torture of animals in research & bull flipping, tail breaking rodeo”. 2002.

Geoghegan, Tom. “ Should apes have human rights ?” 2007. BBC News Magazine.

Hadley, John. “Why (some philosophers think) using animals in scientific research is seriously wrong”. ANZCART NEWS, 18.1 (2005): 1-6.

France, Malcolm. “So what exactly is ‘Animal Rights’?” ANZCART NEWS, 18.1 (2005): 11-12.

McFadden, John. “The shameful history at the heart of genetics”. Science & Technology. THE HINDU, 2007, p. 17.

Singer, Peter. “All Animals Are Equal”. 2007.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 9). Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons. https://studycorgi.com/animals-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans/

"Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons." StudyCorgi , 9 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/animals-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons'. 9 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/animals-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/animals-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/animals-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans/.

This paper, “Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: February 21, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Animal Rights: Definition, Issues, and Examples

Animal rights advocates believe that non-human animals should be free to live as they wish, without being used, exploited, or otherwise interfered with by humans.

T he idea of giving rights to animals has long been contentious, but a deeper look into the reasoning behind the philosophy reveals ideas that aren’t all that radical. Animal rights advocates want to distinguish animals from inanimate objects, as they are so often considered by exploitative industries and the law.

The animal rights movement strives to make the public aware of the fact that animals are sensitive, emotional , and intelligent beings who deserve dignity and respect. But first, it’s important to understand what the term "animal rights" really means.

What are animal rights?

Animal rights are moral principles grounded in the belief that non-human animals deserve the ability to live as they wish, without being subjected to the desires of human beings. At the core of animal rights is autonomy, which is another way of saying choice . In many countries, human rights are enshrined to protect certain freedoms, such as the right to expression, freedom from torture, and access to democracy. Of course, these choices are constrained depending on social locations like race, class, and gender, but generally speaking, human rights safeguard the basic tenets of what makes human lives worth living. Animal rights aim to do something similar, only for non-human animals.

Animal rights come into direct opposition with animal exploitation, which includes animals used by humans for a variety of reasons, be it for food , as experimental objects, or even pets. Animal rights can also be violated when it comes to human destruction of animal habitats . This negatively impacts the ability of animals to lead full lives of their choosing.

Do animals have rights?

Very few countries have enshrined animal rights into law. However, the US and the UK do have some basic protections and guidelines for how animals can be treated.

The UK Sentience Bill

In 2021, the United Kingdom's House of Commons introduced the Animal Sentience Bill . If passed, this bill would enshrine into law that animals are, in fact, sentient beings, and they deserve humane treatment at the hands of humans. While this law would not afford animals full autonomy, it would be a watershed in the movement to protect animals—officially recognizing their capacity to feel and to suffer, and distinguishing them from inanimate objects.

The US Animal Welfare Act

In 1966, the United States passed the Animal Welfare Act . While it is the biggest federal legislation addressing the treatment of animals to date, its scope is fairly narrow—the law excludes many species, including farmed animals , from its protections. The law does establish some basic guidelines for the sale, transport, and handling of dogs, cats, rabbits, nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, and hamsters. It also protects the psychological welfare of animals who are used in lab experiments, and prohibits the violent practices of dogfighting and cockfighting. Again, this law does not recognize the rights and autonomy of animals—or even their ability to feel pain and suffer—but it does afford non-human animals some basic welfare protections .

What are some examples of animal rights?

While few laws currently exist in the UK or US that recognize or protect animals' rights to enjoy lives free from human interference, the following is a list of examples of animal rights that could one day be enacted:

• Animals may not be used for food.
• Animals may not be hunted.
• The habitats of animals must be protected to allow them to live according to their choosing.
• Animals may not be bred.

What's the difference between animal welfare and animal rights?

Animal rights philosophy is based on the idea that animals should not be used by people for any reason, and that animal rights should protect their interests the way human rights protect people. Animal welfare , on the other hand, is a set of practices designed to govern the treatment of animals who are being dominated by humans, whether for food, research, or entertainment.

Do animals need rights? Pros and cons

The idea of giving animals rights tends to be contentious, given how embedded animal products are within societies such as the United States. Some people, including animal activists, believe in an all-or-nothing approach, where animal rights must be legally enshrined and animals totally liberated from all exploitation. On the other end of the spectrum are people whose livelihoods depend upon animal-based industries. Below are some arguments both in favor of and opposing animal rights.

Arguments in favor of animal rights

Should the rights of animals be recognized, animal exploitative industries would disappear, as would the host of environmental problems they cause, including water pollution, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and deforestation.

Halting the widespread use of animals would also eliminate the systematic cruelty and denial of choice that animal industries perpetuate. The physical and psychological pain endured by animals in places like factory farms has reached a point many consider to be unacceptable , to say the least. Animals are mutilated by humans in several different ways, including castrations, dehorning, and cutting off various body parts, usually without the use of anesthetic.

“ Many species never see the outdoors except on their way to the slaughterhouse.

As their name suggests, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) pack vast numbers of animals in cramped conditions, often forcing animals to perpetually stand in their own waste. Many species—including chickens, cows, and pigs—never see the outdoors except on their way to the slaughterhouse. Recognizing animal rights would necessitate stopping this mistreatment for good.

Arguments against animal rights

Most arguments against animal rights can be traced back to money, because animal exploitation is big business. Factory farming for animal products is a multi-billion-dollar industry. JBS, the world’s largest meatpacker, posted $9 billion in revenue for the third quarter of 2020 alone.

A lesser-known, yet also massive, industry is that which supplies animals for laboratories. The US market for lab rats (who are far less popular than mice for experiments) was valued at over $412 million in 2016. Big industrial producers of animals and animal products have enough political clout to influence legislation—including passing laws making it illegal to document farm conditions—and to benefit from government subsidies.

Many people depend upon animal exploitation for work. On factory farms, relatively small numbers of people can manage vast herds or flocks of animals, thanks to mechanization and other industrial farming techniques. Unfortunately, jobs in industrial meatpacking facilities are also known to be some of the most dangerous in the US. Smaller farmers coming from multi-generational farming families more directly depend upon using animals to make a living and tend to follow welfare standards more judiciously. However, smaller farms have been decreasing in number, due to the proliferation of factory farms against which they often cannot compete.

Although people may lose money or jobs in the transition to animal alternatives, new jobs can be created in the alternative protein sector and other plant-based industries.

When did the animal rights movement begin in the US?

The modern day animal rights movement in the United States includes thousands of individuals and a multitude of groups who advocate for animals in a variety of ways—from lobbying legislators to support animal rights laws, to rescuing animals from situations of abuse and neglect. While individuals throughout history have believed in and fought for animal rights, we can trace back the modern, US-based animal rights movement to the founding of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 1866. The group's founder, Henry Burgh , believed that animals are "entitled to kind and respectful treatment at the hands of humans and must be protected under the law." The organization worked with the New York City government to pass and enforce anti-cruelty laws that prevented the abuse of carthorses and provided care for injured horses. Since then, the ASPCA has expanded its advocacy across different non-human animal species—including farmed animals—and many more animal protection groups have sprung up, both locally and nationwide. Currently, there are over 40,000 non-profit organizations identified as animal groups in the US.

Why are animal rights important?

Animal rights are important because they represent a set of beliefs that counteract inaccurate yet long-held assumptions that animals are nothing more than mindless machines—beliefs popularized by western philosopher Rene Descartes in the 17th century. The perception of animals as being unthinking, unfeeling beings justified using them for human desires, resulting in today’s world where farmed mammals outnumber those in the wild, and the majority of these farmed animals are forced to endure harsh conditions on factory farms.

“ Farmed mammals outnumber those in the wild.

But the science is increasingly clear: The animals we eat ( pigs, chickens, cows ), the animals we use in laboratories ( mice and rats ), the animals who provide us with clothing , and those whose backs we ride upon have all been found to possess more cognitive complexity, emotions, and overall sophistication than has long been believed. This sophistication renders animals more susceptible not only to physical pain but also to the psychological impacts caused by the habitual denial of choice. Awareness of their own subjugation forms sufficient reasoning to rethink the ways animals are treated in western societies.

The consequences of animal rights

Currently, laws in the US and UK are geared toward shielding animals from cruelty, not giving them the same freedom of choice that humans have. (Even these laws are sorely lacking, as they fail to protect livestock and laboratory animals.) However, the animal rights movement can still have real-world consequences. Calls for animal liberation from places like factory farms can raise public awareness of the poor living conditions and welfare violations these facilities perpetuate, sometimes resulting in stronger protections, higher welfare standards , and decreasing consumer demand. Each of these outcomes carries economic consequences for producers, as typically it is more expensive for factory farms to provide better living conditions such as more space, or using fewer growth hormones which can result in lower production yields.

Of course, should the animal rights movement achieve its goals , society would look much different than it does today. If people consume more alternative sources of protein, such as plant-based or lab-grown meat, the global environment would be far less impacted. Clothing would be made without leather or other animal products; alternative sources, such as pineapple leather created from waste products from the pineapple industry, could replace toxic tanneries. The fur industry is being increasingly shunned, with fashion labels rejecting fur in favor of faux materials. Ocean ecosystems would be able to recover, replenishing fish populations and seafloor habitats. Today these are razed by bottom trawling fishing, resulting in the clear-cutting of corals that can be thousands of years old .

How you can advocate for animals

A world in which animals are free from human exploitation still seems far off, but we can make choices that create a kinder world for animals, every day. We can start by leaving animals off our plate in favor of plant-based alternatives—a choice that recognizes animals as the sentient beings that they are, and not products for consumption.

When we come together, we can also fight for better protections for animals in the US and around the world. There's a robust movement to hold corporations accountability and end the cruelty of factory farming—an industry which causes immense amount of suffering for billions of animals. If you want to help end this suffering and spread compassion for animals, join our community of online animal activists and take action .

More like this

What Is Animal Welfare and Why Is It Important?

Though critics argue that advocating for animal welfare only cements animals’ exploitation in laboratories, on farms, and in other industrial situations, strengthening welfare standards makes these animals' lives more bearable.

The Ethical Case for Welfare Reform

Industry welfare commitments are good for animals. Here’s why.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Your side might lose. But you don’t have to lose your mind.

How can higher ed make democracy better?

Is China headed toward instability?

They can think, feel pain, love. isn’t it time animals had rights.

Martha Nussbaum lays out ethical, legal case in new book

Martha Nussbaum

Excerpted from “Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility” by Martha C. Nussbaum, M.A. ’71, Ph.D. ’75

Animals are in trouble all over the world. Our world is dominated by humans everywhere: on land, in the seas, and in the air. No non-human animal escapes human domination. Much of the time, that domination inflicts wrongful injury on animals: whether through the barbarous cruelties of the factory meat industry, through poaching and game hunting, through habitat destruction, through pollution of the air and the seas, or through neglect of the companion animals that people purport to love.

In a way, this problem is age-old. Both Western and non-Western philosophical traditions have deplored human cruelty to animals for around two millennia. The Hindu emperor Ashoka (c. 304–232 bce), a convert to Buddhism, wrote about his efforts to give up meat and to forgo all practices that harmed animals. In Greece the Platonist philosophers Plutarch (46–119 ce) and Porphyry (c. 234–305 ce) wrote detailed treatises deploring human cruelty to animals, describing their keen intelligence and their capacity for social life, and urging humans to change their diet and their way of life. But by and large these voices have fallen on deaf ears, even in the supposedly moral realm of the philosophers, and most humans have continued to treat most animals like objects, whose suffering does not matter — although they sometimes make an exception for companion animals. Meanwhile, countless animals have suffered cruelty, deprivation, and neglect.

Because the reach of human cruelty has expanded, so too has the involvement of virtually all people in it. Even people who do not consume meat produced by the factory farming industry are likely to have used single-use plastic items, to use fossil fuels mined beneath the ocean and polluting the air, to dwell in areas in which elephants and bears once roamed, or to live in high-rise buildings that spell death for migratory birds. The extent of our own implication in practices that harm animals should make every person with a conscience consider what we can all do to change this situation. Pinning guilt is less important than accepting the fact that humanity as a whole has a collective duty to face and solve these problems.

So far, I have not spoken of the extinction of animal species, because this is a book about loss and deprivation suffered by individual creatures, each of whom matters. Species as such do not suffer loss. However, extinction never takes place without massive suffering of individual creatures: the hunger of a polar bear, starving on an ice floe, unable to cross the sea to hunt; the sadness of an orphan elephant, deprived of care and community as the species dwindles rapidly; the mass extinctions of song-bird species as a result of unbreathable air, a horrible death. When human practices hound species toward extinction, member animals always suffer greatly and live squashed and thwarted lives. Besides, the species themselves matter for creating diverse ecosystems in which animals can live well.

Extinctions would take place even without human intervention. Even in such cases we might have reasons to intervene to stop them, because of the importance of biodiversity. But scientists agree that today’s extinctions are between one thousand and ten thousand times higher than the natural extinction rate. (Our uncertainty is huge, because we are very ignorant of how many species there actually are, particularly where fish and insects are concerned.) Worldwide, approximately one-quarter of the world’s mammals and over 40 percent of amphibians are currently threatened with extinction. These include several species of bear, the Asian elephant (endangered), the African elephant (threatened), the tiger, six species of whale, the gray wolf, and so many more. All in all, more than 370 animal species are either endangered or threatened, using the criteria of the US Endangered Species Act, not including birds, and a separate list of similar length for birds. Asian songbirds are virtually extinct in the wild, on account of the lucrative trade in these luxury items. And many other species of birds have recently become extinct. Meanwhile, the international treaty called CITES that is supposed to protect birds (and many other creatures) is toothless and unenforced. The story of this book is not that story of mass extinction, but the sufferings of individual creatures that take place against this background of human indifference to biodiversity.

“The extent of our own implication in practices that harm animals should make every person with a conscience consider what we can all do to change this situation.”

There is a further reason why the ethical evasion of the past must end now. Today we know far more about animal lives than we did even 50 years ago. We know much too much for the glib excuses of the past to be offered without shame. Porphyry and Plutarch (and Aristotle before them) knew a lot about animal intelligence and sensitivity. But somehow humans find ways of “forgetting” what the science of the past has plainly revealed, and for many centuries most people, including most philosophers, thought animals were “brute beasts,” automata without a subjective sense of the world, without emotions, without society, and perhaps even without the feeling of pain.

Recent decades, however, have seen an explosion of high-level research covering all areas of the animal world. We now know more not only about animals long closely studied — primates and companion animals — but also about animals who are difficult to study — marine mammals, whales, fish, birds, reptiles, and cephalopods.

We know — not just by observation, but by carefully designed experimental work — that all vertebrates and many invertebrates feel pain subjectively, and have, more generally, a subjectively felt view of the world: the world looks like something to them. We know that all of these animals experience at least some emotions (fear being the most ubiquitous), and that many experience emotions like compassion and grief that involve more complex “takes” on a situation. We know that animals as different as dolphins and crows can solve complicated problems and learn to use tools to solve them. We know that animals have complex forms of social organization and social behavior. More recently, we have been learning that these social groups are not simply places where a rote inherited repertory is acted out, but places of complicated social learning. Species as different as whales, dogs, and many types of birds clearly transmit key parts of the species’ repertoire to their young socially, not just genetically.

What are the implications of this research for ethics? Huge, clearly. We can no longer draw the usual line between our own species and “the beasts,” a line meant to distinguish intelligence, emotion, and sentience from the dense life of a “brute beast.” Nor can we even draw a line between a group of animals we already recognize as sort of “like us” — apes, elephants, whales, dogs — and others who are supposed to be unintelligent. Intelligence takes multiple and fascinating forms in the real world, and birds, evolving by a very different path from humans, have converged on many similar abilities. Even an invertebrate such as the octopus has surprising capacities for intelligent perception: an octopus can recognize individual humans, and can solve complex problems, guiding one of its arms through a maze to obtain food using only its eyes. Once we recognize all this we can hardly be unchanged in our ethical thinking. To put a “brute beast” in a cage seems no more wrong than putting a rock in a terrarium. But that is not what we are doing. We are deforming the existence of intelligent and complexly sentient forms of life. Each of these animals strives for a flourishing life, and each has abilities, social and individual, that equip it to negotiate a decent life in a world that gives animals difficult challenges. What humans are doing is to thwart this striving — and this seems wrong.

But even though the time has come to recognize our ethical responsibility to the other animals, we have few intellectual tools to effect meaningful change. The third reason why we must confront what we are doing to animals now, today, is that we have built a world in which two of humanity’s best tools for progress, law and political theory, have, so far, no or little help to offer us. Law — both domestic and international — has quite a lot to say about the lives of companion animals, but very little to say about any other animals. Nor do animals in most nations have what lawyers call “standing”: that is, the status to bring a legal claim if they are wronged. Of course, animals cannot themselves bring a legal claim, but neither can most humans, including children, people with cognitive disabilities — and, to tell the truth, almost everybody, since people have little knowledge of the law. All of us need a lawyer to press our claims. But all the humans I have mentioned — including people with lifelong cognitive disabilities — count, and can bring a legal claim, assisted by an able advocate. The way we have designed the world’s legal systems, animals do not have this simple privilege. They do not count.

Law is built by humans using the theories they have. When those theories were racist, laws were racist. When theories of sex and gender excluded women, so too did law. And there is no denying that most political thought by humans the world over has been human-centered, excluding animals. Even the theories that purport to offer help in the struggle against abuse are deeply defective, built on an inadequate picture of animal lives and animal striving. As a philosopher and political theorist who is also deeply immersed in law and law teaching, I hope to change things with this book.

Copyright © 2022 by Martha Nussbaum. Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Share this article

You might like.

Political engagement is healthy. Doomscrolling? Not so much.

Kennedy School panel says it’s a combination of knowledge — and skills

Foreign policy experts discuss likely fraught succession at kickoff of two months of events marking 75th anniversary of People’s Republic

What happened when a meteorite the size of four Mount Everests hit Earth? 

Giant impact had silver lining for life, according to new study

How to apply cool-headed reason to red-hot topics

Michael J. Sandel brings back wildly popular ‘Justice’ course amid time of strained discourse on college campuses

Do phones belong in schools?

Banning cellphones may help protect classroom focus, but school districts need to stay mindful of students’ sense of connection, experts say.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Animal Rights, Essay Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1847

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Introduction

The issue of animal rights has been controversial for long centuries, despite the more modern focus upon it.  More exactly, and in multiple cultures, it seems to have existed beneath prevailing social views holding that, as animals are essentially the property of mankind, protecting their rights goes only to protecting the value of their use (Sunstein, Nussbaum, 2004,  p. 323).  The law, it is widely believed, will only look after animal welfare for this reason.  As the law ensures rights, then, the concept of animal rights has typically been a debate waged in a strictly ethical context, removed from factors of practicality.  Also suppressing any efforts to view animals as entitled to rights are religious views, which greatly influence most cultures.  Most of humanity’s history is, in one way or another, linked to humanity acting in the belief that it is elevated beyond all other forms of life.  Catholicism, for example, has always held that only man has true rights because only man has a soul, endowed by God.  Furthermore, traditional views of animals likely deny them rights simply out of a fear of equating humans with animals; is a monkey has the same, basic rights as a human baby, then a human baby has no greater status than a monkey (Sunstein, Nussbaum, 2004, p. 61).   Consequently, as many people have always been drawn to protecting animals by an instinctive desire, animal rights have been simmering as a subject for a very long time.

It is essential to understand, before any arguments supporting or opposing animals rights are presented, that the subject is distinct from animal welfare.  The proper treatment of animals is far less controversial than animal rights, because most people object to cruelty practiced on any living thing.  Animal rights advocates, on the other hand, hold that human exploitation of animals in any form violates basic rights of living beings, and that one species is not entitled to impose itself over another.  While those after animals rights and supporters of animal welfare unite on basic levels, there are important differences, and these enable arguments.

The most commonly made points from opponents to animal rights go to preserving and/or enhancing human life, which it is felt cannot be without treating animals in a way removed from having rights.  On the most elementary level, opponents cite the fact that animals have been raised as food sources since recorded history.   Not only is meat considered an essential staple of the human diet, testing on animals allows for the development of medicines that cannot be otherwise created (Ritter, Nobis, 2008, p. 9).  Those holding to these views by no means endorse cruelty to animals, as a rule.  Rather, they take the perceived, more pragmatic view that, religion aside, humans are the most evolved species and are therefore entitled to use whatever means are available to thrive.  Added to these arguments is one difficult to address, in that providing for animal rights would require a radical restructuring of all societies.  Whole economies are based on animal farming, in which the animals are nothing more than commodities to be raised and slaughtered.  Then, there is the matter of scale.  Opponents of animal rights often refer to the unfortunate fact that mankind has yet to establish universal rights for its own kind.  Entire cultures still exist wherein certain types of people are subjugated, or denied fundamental liberties, just as extremes in international relations, such as wars, frequently ignore human rights.  Lastly, and as noted, opponents are typically guided by religious influences.  In Western cultures, for instance, both Christian and Jewish faiths point to doctrine as clearly indicating mankind’s complete dominion over all other living things (Ritter, Nobis, 2008,  p. 16).

Supporters of animal rights rarely ignore these arguments; on the contrary, they usually agree that the issue is highly complex, and certainly not easily solved.  They acknowledge that animals play many roles in human affairs, and that concern over the rights of domestic pets is different than addressing farming or hunting matters.  What unites most animal rights supporters, however, is a fundamental skepticism based on traditional ethical and legal customs.  It is felt that law is what universally establishes any culture as civilized, and law must operate from a common concept of man as having the facility of reason.  Reason, then, obligates mankind to consider other unifying factors in all animal life, and it has been proposed by supporters that pain is as unifying an element in animals as reason is for mankind.  If this is pursued, it follows, and in a way reflecting legal thought, that the presence of pain establishes the potentials for higher quality of life (Sunstein, Nussbaum, 2004,  p. 196).  Then, there is the ethical imperative in place from human ignorance.  As humanity lacks a great deal of knowledge regarding classifications of animals, if not whatever “inner” lives they may possess, it is further obligated to err on the side of caution, and accord rights based on the fact that animal life is inherently an evolved state of being.  Simply, as animal rights supporters view the issue, we do not know enough to confidently deny other creatures rights, even if we perceive ourselves to be a more evolved form of life.

Personal View

In my estimation, it is crucial to understand that animal welfare is inextricably connected to animal rights, and we must never lose sight of the fact that acknowledging the former inevitably supports the latter.  If, for example, we hold that deliberate cruelty to animals is reprehensible, then we are already asserting that these are living creatures deserving of decent treatment.  We are giving them stature because we know that they experience life in many of the ways we do as human beings.  We certainly operate on the assumptions that pets develop real affection for us, as we frequently and ironically refer to this as being more desirable than human affection.  Then, as noted, we know absolutely that pain and suffering is as keenly felt by animals as it is by us.  Human beings may debate endlessly as to the reality of the human soul, but that debate does not include any power to deny the existence of one in another kind of life.  This, as I see it, automatically translates to a need to assure animal rights.

Beyond this, I strongly feel that, whatever animals experience as beings, our own concept of ourselves as evolved equates to a responsibility to care for them, and in ways not dependent upon our own needs.  In any sphere of human activity, virtue is defined as that action which exists to serve another, and not the self.  We have all the evidence we need, that animals feel.  That is more than enough to demand that we live up to our status as the most evolved of all creatures, and do whatever we can to provide for them.  I do not assert that livestock should be no longer owned, or that animals should be “consulted” in some way before being adopted as pets.  I do believe, however, that our own knowledge and ethics must guide us to assure rights universally in place regarding all treatment.  In basic terms, humanity is famous for exploiting itself historically, as cultures ignore the rights of other cultures.  Humans are empowered to resist.  Animals have no such ability.  If, then, we commit to treating the defenseless among us with a universal regard for basic welfare, we may eventually learn to act in the same way to our fellow human beings.

Potential Objections

It may be argued that my view ignores realities, or relies too much upon a conviction of animal states of being largely subjective.  As animals cannot directly communicate to us, we can only guess at how they actually feel, and it could be said that my argument “humanizes” animals to an unreasonable extent.  Then, there remains the matter of human superiority, which is not always put forth as an arrogance.  The reality is that humans create and build, and conduct interactions on a level far beyond the capabilities of animals.  Whether or not anyone or thing concerned has a soul, this is a fact.  Therefore, if using animals enhances our lives in any way, we are fully entitled to do this.  Animals themselves have no problem in “exploiting” other animals, when their power and greater skills allow for it.  The cat, for instance, toys with the mouse before killing it, simply because instinct drives it to do this.  To not take advantage of what animals offer is, then, a violation of human instinct.  Then, “cruelty” itself is open to interpretation.  The dog owner who decides to put their old pet to sleep may be seen as being cruel, and violating the rights of the dog.  To entertain animal rights at all, in fact, is a slippery slope, as that basic inability to know what an animal thinks and feels means that we cannot ever properly assign them rights.

To work my way up from the end, however an animal behaves in regard to another animal must not be allowed to guide how we act, simply because we do hold to being the most evolved species.  To accord animals protections and rights is by no means the equivalent of seeing them as equal to humans; it is, in fact, only a reinforcement of human superiority.  No one challenges that laws are in place to protect children and provide them with rights, because children are unable to assert these for themselves.  The same principle applies, in that the party deemed as wisest and most capable is inherently obligated to look after that which is not.  It is said that the defining quality of any civilization lies in how it treats its weakest members.  If we are to consider ourselves civilized, then, we are ethically responsible for protecting those creature unable to protect themselves.

As to the subjectivity involved in supporting animal rights, no one can reasonably state that this is not an issue.  Such complications, however, mark all human affairs as well, yet we do not abandon attempts to move onto a higher plane of action.  The pet owner deciding to end the life of the dog is inherently as subject to criticism as the terminally-ill person seeking to end their own life.  What matters in both cases is that a regard for the life is present.  This example, in fact, works very well with animal rights, because both cases go to determining the essential value of a life.  It is inevitable that mankind debates such things, yet it is the fact that debate is necessary which gives meaning to the subjects themselves.  If humanity cannot know absolutely to what degree animals feel and think, it is still known that they are relatively highly evolved beings with both feelings and brains.  Ultimately, how we choose to respect them defines what we are ourselves, and our own claim to being the most evolved of all.

Ritter, Christie, & Nobis, Nathan.  (2008).  Animal Rights .  Edina: ABDO Publishing.

Sunstein, Cass R., & Nussbaum, Martha C.  (2004).  Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions.   New York: Oxford University Press.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

This I Believe, Essay Example

Nurse Leader, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Relatives, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 364

Voting as a Civic Responsibility, Essay Example

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

Essay on Animal Rights

Students are often asked to write an essay on Animal Rights in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Animal Rights

Understanding animal rights.

Animal rights mean animals should be free from human harm, abuse, or use for personal gains. It’s the belief that animals deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. This concept is based on the idea that animals have feelings and interests just like humans.

Importance of Animal Rights

Animal rights are important because animals are living beings. They feel pain, experience emotions, and want to live a life free from harm. By respecting animal rights, we show our respect for all life forms. We also help maintain balance in nature.

Threats to Animal Rights

Animals face many threats. These include hunting, habitat loss, and cruel treatment in farms or circuses. Many animals are also used for scientific experiments. These practices cause pain and suffering to animals. They are clear violations of animal rights.

Steps to Protect Animal Rights

We can protect animal rights in many ways. We can adopt pets instead of buying them. We can avoid products tested on animals. We can also support organizations that work for animal rights. Teaching others about animal rights is another effective way to help.

Animal rights are a crucial part of a just society. By protecting animal rights, we also protect our environment and ourselves. It’s our duty to ensure that animals live free from harm and exploitation. We must respect all life forms and their rights.

Also check:

• Speech on Animal Rights

250 Words Essay on Animal Rights

What are animal rights.

Animal rights mean that animals deserve to live free from suffering, pain, and exploitation. This idea is based on the belief that animals have feelings too. They can feel joy, sadness, and pain just like us humans. So, they should be treated with kindness and respect.

Why are Animal Rights Important?

Animal rights are important for many reasons. Firstly, animals are living beings, not objects. They should not be used for our selfish needs like food, clothing, or entertainment. Secondly, respecting animal rights helps us become better humans. It teaches us values like compassion, empathy, and respect for all life. Lastly, animals play a crucial role in our ecosystem. If we harm them, it can disturb the balance of nature.

How can we Protect Animal Rights?

Protecting animal rights is not hard. We can start by being kind to animals. We should not hurt them or make them suffer. We can also stop using products that are tested on animals. Many companies test their products on animals, causing them pain and suffering. By refusing to buy such products, we can stand up for animal rights.

Role of Laws in Protecting Animal Rights

Many countries have laws to protect animal rights. These laws make it illegal to harm animals or use them in cruel ways. But, these laws are not always followed. So, it’s important for us to raise our voice against animal cruelty. We can report cases of animal abuse to the authorities and demand strict action.

In conclusion, animals have a right to live free from pain and suffering. It’s our duty to respect these rights and protect animals. After all, a world where all living beings are treated with kindness and respect is a better world for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Animal Rights

Animal rights mean that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration—what’s best for them. Regardless of how useful they are to humans, or how cute they are, they should be treated with respect. They should not be hurt or treated badly. Some people think animals should have the same rights as humans, while others believe they should have different rights.

Animal rights are important because animals are living beings. They can feel pain, they can suffer, and they have a will to live. Just like humans, they have feelings and emotions. They deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. Animal rights also help people. When we treat animals well, we also learn to treat people well.

Types of Animal Rights

There are two main types of animal rights. The first type is called ‘animal welfare’. This means that people should make sure animals are treated well. They should have good food, a nice place to live, and should not be hurt or made to suffer.

The second type is ‘animal liberation’. This means that animals should be free and not used by humans at all. People who believe in animal liberation think that animals should not be kept in zoos or farms, used for testing, or used for entertainment.

Animal Rights and Laws

Many countries have laws to protect animals. These laws say that people cannot hurt animals or make them suffer. They also say that animals should be treated with respect. But, not all countries have these laws, and in many places, these laws are not followed.

Animal Rights Movements

There are many groups that fight for animal rights. These groups work to change laws, to stop people from hurting animals, and to educate people about how to treat animals better. Some of these groups are big and well-known, like PETA and the Humane Society. Others are smaller and work in just one area or on one issue.

What Can We Do?

There are many ways we can help animals and support animal rights. We can adopt pets instead of buying them. We can choose not to go to places that use animals for entertainment, like circuses and zoos. We can eat less meat or no meat at all. And, we can tell others about why animal rights are important.

In conclusion, animal rights are about respecting and caring for animals. They are about understanding that animals have feelings and deserve to be treated well. By supporting animal rights, we are not just helping animals, we are also making the world a better place for all living beings.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Animal Exploitation
• Essay on Animals Also Have Feelings
• Essay on Animals Used For Entertainment

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Animal Ethics — Persuasive Animal Rights And The Importance Of Treating Animals With Respect

Persuasive Animal Rights and The Importance of Treating Animals with Respect

• Categories: Animal Cruelty Animal Ethics

About this sample

Words: 1394 |

Published: Jan 28, 2021

Words: 1394 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, works cited.

• American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). (n.d.). Animal cruelty laws in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/canada
• Animal Equality. (n.d.). Animal testing. Retrieved from https://www.animalequality.org/issues/animal-testing
• Animal Welfare Act. (1966). 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.
• Bekoff, M. (2013). The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy — and why they matter. New World Library.
• Cartmill, M. (1996). A view to a death in the morning: Hunting and nature through history. Harvard University Press.
• Dawkins, M. S. (2006). Through our eyes only? The search for animal consciousness. Oxford University Press.
• Francione, G. L. (1995). Animals, property, and the law. Temple University Press.
• Herzing, D. L. (2010). Dolphin communication: A window into the complexity of human language. In S. M. Reader & K. Laland (Eds.), Animal social complexity: Intelligence, culture, and individualized societies (pp. 293-311). Harvard University Press.
• Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.
• Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation. Harper Perennial.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2473 words

3 pages / 1465 words

2 pages / 924 words

1 pages / 540 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Ethics

Martinez, Diana Rowe. “Rodeo Animals Are Not Abused.” Greenhaven Press, 2004 and Gale 2001. 07 May 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Context. Accessed 27 Oct. 2019.O’Connor, Jennifer. “Animal Abuse at The Rodeo.” New York Times, 07, [...]

The existence of zoos serves a broader purpose beyond mere entertainment. The benefits that zoos provide in terms of conservation, education, research, and public engagement are undeniable. Through dedicated efforts, zoos [...]

The practice of keeping animals in captivity, whether in zoos, aquariums, circuses, or other forms of confinement, has long been a subject of ethical debate and controversy. While some argue that captivity serves educational and [...]

The concept of zoos has long been a topic of debate, raising questions about the ethical implications of confining animals for human entertainment and conservation purposes. This essay delves into the multifaceted discussion [...]

The Bahamas are a ground of about 700 islands and 2,400 uninhabited islets and cays lying 50 mi off the east coast of Florida. Only about 30 of the islands are inhabited; the most important is New Providence (80 sq. mi; 207 sq. [...]

Statement of the problem: Animal testing has been around for centuries, starting with ancient Greek physicians who used animals for testing of medicines and anatomy of animals. It was only during the 12th century when physicians [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• All Lessons
• General Training
• IELTS Tests
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Animal Rights Essay

This IELTS  animal rights essay  discusses the exploitation of animals by humans.

People who believe in animal rights think that they should not be treated cruelly, for example in experiments or for sport.

'To exploit' means to benefit from something in an unfair way. Take a look at the question:

A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Discussing 'Two Opinions'

Animals should not be exploited by people and they should have the same rights as humans. Humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

In this essay you are being given two opposing opinions to discuss.

This is the first opinion:

• Animals should not be exploited by people and they should have the same rights as humans.

This is the second opinion:

• Humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

In this type of essay, you must look at both sides. In other words you need to discuss the arguments FOR animal rights and AGAINST .

You must also ensure you give YOUR opinion.

Organising the Essay

One way to organize an essay like this is to consider both opinions, then give your opinion in a final paragraph ( see this example ) or dedicate a whole final paragraph to your opinion ( see this example ).

Another way to write an essay like this is to also make one of the 'for' or 'against' opinions your opinion as well.

Look at the model animal rights essay below. The second body paragraph discusses the first opinion, but the topic sentence makes it clear that this paragraph is also representing the writers opinion as well:

However, I do not believe these arguments stand up to scrutiny.

This now means that in two body paragraphs you have covered all three parts of the question from the animal rights essay:

1. First opinion 2. Second opinion 3. Your opinion

The advantage of doing it this way rather than having a separate paragraph is that you do not need to come up with new ideas for a new paragraph.

If you have a separate paragraph with your opinion you may find you cannot think of any new ideas or you may end up repeating the same things as in your previous paragraphs.

IELTS Writing Example

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Animal Rights Essay - Model Answer

Animals have always been used by humans in some form to satisfy their needs. However, while some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way humans are and have similar rights, others think that it is more important to use them as we desire for food and medical research. 

With regard to the exploitation of animals, people believe it is acceptable for several reasons. Firstly, they think that humans are the most important beings on the planet, and everything must be done to ensure human survival. If this means experimenting on animals so that we can fight and find cures for diseases, then this takes priority over animal suffering. Furthermore, it is believed by some that animals do not feel pain or loss as humans do, so if we have to kill animals for food or other uses, then this is morally acceptable.

However, I do not believe these arguments stand up to scrutiny. To begin, it has been shown on numerous occasions by secret filming in laboratories via animal rights groups that animals feel as much pain as humans do, and they suffer when they are kept in cages for long periods. In addition, a substantial amount of animal research is done for cosmetics, not to find cures for diseases, so this is unnecessary. Finally, it has also been proven that humans can get all the nutrients and vitamins that they need from green vegetables and fruit. Therefore, again, having to kill animals for food is not an adequate argument.

To sum up, although some people argue killing animals for research and food is ethical, I would argue there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case, and, therefore, steps must be taken to improve the rights of animals.

(Words 290) 

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Discuss Two Opinion Essays:

Sources for Stories Essay: Should parents read to their children?

This sources for stories essay asks for your opinion on the best way for children to get stories. Is it from parents reading to them or other ways?

Zoo Essay: Are zoos cruel or do they protect animals?

This is a recent zoo essay question from the IELTS test (June 2018). Essay about zoos have come up a few times in the IELTS test so it's worth studying same sample questions and sample essays about the topic.

Child Development Essay: What factors influence a child's development?

Child Development Essay for IELTS. The essay is about the factors that affect the way that children develop. It provides you with a model answer and comments on the response to help you know how to improve your band score.

IELTS Writing Example: What are the aims of a university education?

IELTS writing example essays. This is an essay on the aims of university education. In this essay, two opposing opinions need to be discussed. It is important to understand how to answer this type of question in the IELTS exam.

IELTS Essays: What is the best way to reduce crime?

IELTS essays online with comments by an IELTS instructor - A writing sample on the topic of reducing crime.

Extraterrestrial Life Essay: Should we look for life on other planets?

This extraterrestrial life essay is an IELTS opinion essay where you have to discuss both sides of an issue then give your own opinion.

Childcare Essay: Should family or carers look after young children?

Childcare Essay: In the essay you have to discuss two sides of an argument. The first is that it is better if pre-school children are looked after at home with relatives such as grandparents. The second opinion is that children should be looked after at childcare centres.

Diet and Health Essay: Who is responsible for diet and health?

Diet and Health Essay for IELTS: This model examines the extent to which individuals or governments should be responsible for health. Read a model answer and useful comments about the essay which will help you to improve your IELTS Score.

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay- Model answer for IELTS. Who has had the most influence on our world? In this essay you have to discuss both sides.

IELTS Essay Becoming Independent

This IELTS essay discussed whether people are becoming more independent than they were in the past. This is a question that has come up a few times in the test. This is discussion type essay as you have to discuss both sides of an argument and come to a conclusion.

Formal and Informal Education Essay: What age should it start?

This formal and informal education essay is about whether it is best for children to begin their formal education at school when they are 7 rather than much younger.

Donating Money to Charity Essay: Where should the money go?

Donating Money to Charity Essay: IELTS model answer to an essay on the topic of giving locally or to national and international charities.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

Bargain eBook Deal! 30% Discount

All 4 Writing eBooks for just  $25.86 Find out more >>

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Lesson on Writing IELTS Line Graphs

Oct 15, 24 02:26 AM

Time Management Tips for IELTS

Oct 06, 24 12:59 PM

IELTS Academic or General: Which One Should You Take?

Sep 28, 24 02:59 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Before you go...

30% discount - just $25.86 for all 4 writing ebooks.

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Animal Welfare vs. Rights: Compare and Contrast Essay

Introduction, works cited.

Despite being used interchangeably, the terms animal welfare and animal rights are different. One can state that the term animal rights refers to the privileges that animals should enjoy ( Welfare vs. Rights) . Scholars that support this school of thought argue that animals should have the same privileges as human beings ( Welfare vs. Rights) . On the other hand, animal welfare refers mainly to the human responsibility to ensure that all aspects of animal well-being are upheld ( Welfare vs. Rights ). This essay compares the two concepts in relation to animal research in medical science.

Apart from the definition, animal welfare is different from animal rights as it supports the ethical and responsible use of animals for the benefit of man ( Animal Research ). According to the Animal Research web page, animals are an essential part of medical research. Individuals that debate using animal rights are often against the use of animals for experimental biological studies. To convince them, I would mention some of the ground-breaking researches and studies that have been realized due to animal research. For instance, it is the use of cows in the search for a vaccine for smallpox that eradicated the disease ( Animal Testing and Research ).

While comparing animal rights and welfare, one also has to consider the fact that animals cannot have the same rights as human beings as the former (animal rights) recommends. Man’s complex brain has ensured their position at the apex.

Whereas human beings can reason and know what is right and wrong, animals depend purely on their instincts for survival. It is this reason that allows human beings to keep animals as pets. A person who suggests that animals should have similar rights to human beings should also not keep pets as it can be deemed ‘slavery’. Additionally, one can argue that supporters of animal rights should also be completely vegans.

Whereas one can argue that animals cannot have the same rights as humans, it is important to also point out that animal welfare ensures that animals are treated well at all times. One can state that whereas animals do not have the same complex brain as humans, they can feel pain, love, and other emotions (1). The fact that animals have feelings creates an ethical conundrum in regard to medical research. However, animal welfare ensures that the animals used in medical studies are as comfortable as possible (Butterworth 13). Many of these animals do not suffer during these experiments.

Despite the stated differences and the fact that I support animal research, it is prudent to note that scientists and researchers have a prominent responsibility towards animals. Indeed, animal research can be done on all types of animals that can enhance medical and biological research. Towards this end, scientists have to ensure that there are adequate policies to assure the dignified and ethical use of animals for medical research.

In conclusion, both animal rights and animal welfare aim to improve human interaction with animals for the benefit of both. However, animal welfare encourages the fact that human beings are more superior to animals. It is this superiority that should ensure that animals are not mistreated. Indeed, the use of animals in medical research has led to ground-breaking realizations. Despite this, it is important that all scientists involved in animal research adhere to policies that also protect the welfare of said animals.

Animal Research . AMP, 2019. Web.

Animal Testing and Research . Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2019. Web.

Butterworth, Andrew. Animal Welfare in a Changing World . CABI, 2018.

Welfare vs. Rights . Animal Welfare Council, 2019. Web.

• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing
• In Defense of Speciesism
• Internet Hacking and Cybersecurity Conundrum
• Code of Ethics: Apex Inc.
• Examples of Healthcare Fraud and Unjust Gains Through Medical Coverage
• Moral Status of Animals: Vegetarianism and Veganism
• The Vancouver Principles of Animal Rights Protection
• Adopting a Pet for a Balanced Life
• Companion Animals as Property of Humans
• Agricultural Products vs. Animal Rights Dilemma
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, June 7). Animal Welfare vs. Rights: Compare and Contrast. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-welfare-vs-rights-compare-and-contrast/

"Animal Welfare vs. Rights: Compare and Contrast." IvyPanda , 7 June 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-welfare-vs-rights-compare-and-contrast/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Animal Welfare vs. Rights: Compare and Contrast'. 7 June.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Animal Welfare vs. Rights: Compare and Contrast." June 7, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-welfare-vs-rights-compare-and-contrast/.

1. IvyPanda . "Animal Welfare vs. Rights: Compare and Contrast." June 7, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-welfare-vs-rights-compare-and-contrast/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Animal Welfare vs. Rights: Compare and Contrast." June 7, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-welfare-vs-rights-compare-and-contrast/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .