Essay on kindness to animals for kids
Gary Francione, professor of law and philosophy at Rutgers Law School in Newark, is a leading abolitionist writer, arguing that animals need only one right, the right not to be owned.
Everything else would follow from that paradigm shift. He writes that, although most people would condemn the mistreatment of animals, and in many countries there are laws that seem to reflect those concerns, "in practice the legal system allows any use of animals, however abhorrent. In deciding what counts as "unnecessary", an animal's interests are weighed against the interests of human beings, and the latter almost always prevail.
Francione's Animals, Property, and the Law was the first extensive jurisprudential treatment of animal rights. In it, Francione compares the situation of animals to the treatment of slaves in the United States , where legislation existed that appeared to protect them, while the courts ignored that the institution of slavery itself rendered the protection unenforceable.
He argues that a focus on animal welfare, rather than animal rights, may worsen the position of animals by making the public feel comfortable about using them and entrenching the view of them as property. He calls animal rights groups who pursue animal welfare issues, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals , the " new welfarists ", arguing that they have more in common with 19th-century animal protectionists than with the animal rights movement; indeed, the terms "animal protection" and "protectionism" are increasingly favored.
His position in was that there is no animal rights movement in the United States. Mark Rowlands , professor of philosophy at the University of Florida, has proposed a contractarian approach, based on the original position and the veil of ignorance —a "state of nature" thought experiment that tests intuitions about justice and fairness—in John Rawls 's A Theory of Justice In the original position, individuals choose principles of justice what kind of society to form, and how primary social goods will be distributed , unaware of their individual characteristics—their race, sex, class, or intelligence, whether they are able-bodied or disabled, rich or poor—and therefore unaware of which role they will assume in the society they are about to form.
The idea is that, operating behind the veil of ignorance, they will choose a social contract in which there is basic fairness and justice for them no matter the position they occupy. Rawls did not include species membership as one of the attributes hidden from the decision makers in the original position. Rowlands proposes extending the veil of ignorance to include rationality, which he argues is an undeserved property similar to characteristics including race, sex and intelligence.
American philosopher Timothy Garry has proposed an approach that deems nonhuman animals worthy of prima facie rights.
Login with your account
In a philosophical context, a prima facie Latin for "on the face of it" or "at first glance" right is one that appears to be applicable at first glance, but upon closer examination may be outweighed by other considerations. In his book Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory , Lawrence Hinman characterizes such rights as "the right is real but leaves open the question of whether it is applicable and overriding in a particular situation". However, these rights can be overridden by many other considerations, especially those conflicting a human's right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Garry supports his view arguing:.
My point is that like laws govern all who interact within a society, rights are to be applied to all beings who interact within that society. This is not to say these rights endowed by humans are equivalent to those held by nonhuman animals, but rather that if humans possess rights then so must all those who interact with humans. In sum, Garry suggests that humans have obligations to nonhuman animals; however, animals do not, and ought not to, have uninfringible rights against humans.
Women have played a central role in animal advocacy since the 19th century. The modern animal advocacy movement has a similar representation of women, though Garner writes that they are not invariably in leadership positions: during the March for Animals in Washington, D. In the Netherlands, Marianne Thieme and Esther Ouwehand were elected to parliament in representing the Parliamentary group for Animals.
The preponderance of women in the movement has led to a body of academic literature exploring feminism and animal rights; feminism and vegetarianism or veganism, the oppression of women and animals, and the male association of women and animals with nature and emotion, rather than reason—an association that several feminist writers have embraced. Some transhumanists argue for animal rights, liberation, and "uplift" of animal consciousness into machines.
Frey , professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University, is a preference utilitarian, as is Singer, but reaches a very different conclusion, arguing in Interests and Rights that animals have no interests for the utilitarian to take into account. Frey argues that interests are dependent on desire, and that no desire can exist without a corresponding belief. Animals have no beliefs, because a belief state requires the ability to hold a second-order belief—a belief about the belief—which he argues requires language: "If someone were to say, e.
Carl Cohen , professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, argues that rights holders must be able to distinguish between their own interests and what is right. In applying such rules, [they] Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked. Cohen writes that the test for moral judgment "is not a test to be administered to humans one by one", but should be applied to the capacity of members of the species in general.
If a dog threatens a human infant, even if it requires causing more pain to the dog to stop it, than the dog would have caused to the infant, then we favour the child. It would be monstrous to spare the dog.
Singer challenges this by arguing that formerly unequal rights for gays, women, and certain races were justified using the same set of intuitions. Posner replies that equality in civil rights did not occur because of ethical arguments, but because facts mounted that there were no morally significant differences between humans based on race, sex, or sexual orientation that would support inequality. If and when similar facts emerge about humans and animals, the differences in rights will erode too.
But facts will drive equality, not ethical arguments that run contrary to instinct, he argues. Posner calls his approach "soft utilitarianism", in contrast to Singer's "hard utilitarianism". He argues:. The "soft" utilitarian position on animal rights is a moral intuition of many, probably most, Americans. We realize that animals feel pain, and we think that to inflict pain without a reason is bad. Nothing of practical value is added by dressing up this intuition in the language of philosophy; much is lost when the intuition is made a stage in a logical argument.
When kindness toward animals is levered into a duty of weighting the pains of animals and of people equally, bizarre vistas of social engineering are opened up. Roger Scruton , the British philosopher, argues that rights imply obligations. Every legal privilege, he writes, imposes a burden on the one who does not possess that privilege: that is, "your right may be my duty. He accuses animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific" anthropomorphism , attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter -like, where "only man is vile.
The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when, in fact, they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape. Scruton singled out Peter Singer , a prominent Australian philosopher and animal-rights activist, for criticism.
He wrote that Singer's works, including Animal Liberation , "contain little or no philosophical argument. They derive their radical moral conclusions from a vacuous utilitarianism that counts the pain and pleasure of all living things as equally significant and that ignores just about everything that has been said in our philosophical tradition about the real distinction between persons and animals. Evolutionary studies have provided explanations of altruistic behaviours in humans and nonhuman animals, and suggest similarities between humans and some nonhumans.
In , research led by psychologist Diana Reiss and zoologist Lori Marino was presented to a conference in San Diego, suggesting that dolphins are second in intelligence only to human beings, and concluded that they should be regarded as nonhuman persons. Marino used MRI scans to compare the dolphin and primate brain; she said the scans indicated there was "psychological continuity" between dolphins and humans.
Reiss's research suggested that dolphins are able to solve complex problems, use tools, and pass the mirror test , using a mirror to inspect parts of their bodies. Studies have established links between interpersonal violence and animal cruelty. In Christian theology , the founder of the Methodist movement, John Wesley , was a Christian vegetarian and maintained "that animals had immortal souls and that there were considerable similarities between human and non-human animals. According to a paper published in by Harold Herzog and Lorna Dorr, previous academic surveys of attitudes towards animal rights have tended to suffer from small sample sizes and non-representative groups.
These include gender, age, occupation, religion, and level of education. There has also been evidence to suggest that prior experience with companion animals may be a factor in people's attitudes. Women are more likely to empathize with the cause of animal rights than men. A survey to examine whether or not people who believed in evolution were more likely to support animal rights than creationists and believers in intelligent design found that this was largely the case — according to the researchers, the respondents who were strong Christian fundamentalists and believers in creationism were less likely to advocate for animal rights than those who were less fundamentalist in their beliefs.
Two surveys found that attitudes towards animal rights tactics, such as direct action , are very diverse within the animal rights communities.
One survey concluded "it would be a mistake to portray animal rights activists as homogeneous. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For other uses, see Animal rights disambiguation. Belief that non-human animals have basic interests that should be afforded similar consideration as those of humans. This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. The readable prose size is 69 kilobytes. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings.
April Steven Best Stephen R.
Animal Rights Essay
Claim rights and liberty rights Individual and group rights Natural and legal rights Negative and positive rights. Civil and political Economic, social and cultural Three generations. It has been suggested that this section be split out into another article titled Animal rights history in the west. Discuss April Main article: Moral status of animals in the ancient world. Further information: Badger baiting , Bull baiting , and Cockfighting. Further information: wikisource:Martin's Act Main article: Brown Dog affair.
Main article: Veganism.
- palestine argumentative essay?
- Animal rights.
- management planning essays.
- congres des audioprothesistes francais.
Further information: Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. Main article: Oxford Group animal rights.
50 Ways Kids Can Help Animals
Main article: Animal Liberation book. Main article: Animal Liberation Front. Further information: Animal protectionism.