Introduction
Separating right from wrong remains one of the most critical factors that have generated intense debate across various contexts. Precisely, the society is clouded by an array of moral issues that have created a divide pitting those opposed and those supporting certain dynamics in the society. The rights of animals occur as one of the topics that remain controversial and raise varying opinions from the societal populations. The highly democratic nature of the society has offered a platform where animal rights advocacy thrives. While much has been hypothesized about animal rights advocacy, there is a need to note that the notion that animals should have rights was first developed in the 1970s by Peter Singer; an Australian philosopher. Ever since then, the question as to whether animals should have rights has and continues to be debated widely (Boss 76).
My Position
The concept of animal rights varies depending on different contexts such as whether animals should be domesticated, whether animals should be hunted or eaten, and whether animals should be used for scientific experiments or testing. Nonetheless, the major controversy aligned with animal rights is whether animals should be used for testing when performing scientific experiments. There are certain laws that regulate the use of animals for scientific research. Enacted in the year 1966, The Animal Welfare Act of the United States offers certain regulations governing various issues such as the use of animal in research (Cooke 933). A reflection on various settings portrays the fact that different animal species are used for research purposes. Based on a personal thought, animals have rights, which should be established and supported.
Supporting Views
The most comprehensive reason as to why I support the notion that animal has rights is guided by the utilitarian dogma. Utilitarianism hypothesizes that an action is deemed moral if it confers positive consequences that outweigh the negative consequences. Therefore, the benefits that human beings derive from using animals for various purposes such as scientific research tend to outweigh the benefits. Notable is the fact that not all the scientific tests involving the use of animals yield results that benefit human kind. Some of such researches do not yield any results at all. Similarly, the pain that animals go through when they are slaughtered as a source of food does not match the benefits that human get from consuming meat from the slaughtered animals. In a nutshell, the moral consequences emanating from the use of animals for various purposes are severe and warrant the abolition of the use of animals for the said purposes. In a nutshell, animal rights cannot be sacrificed for the sake of certain practices such as the use of animals for scientific researches that do not confer many benefits to human beings.
The fact that I support the argument that animals have rights is further guided by welfarism ideology. This ideology hypothesizes that human beings are tasked with the colossal responsibility of maintaining the welfare of the animals. One of the ways in which humans can assure the welfare of the animals is by reducing animal suffering caused by various practices such as research. Even in cases where use of animals for certain practices such as scientific testing, the practice should be executed in such a way that the suffering of the animals is reduced. As an example, anesthetics should be used to numb the animals before being used for purposes aligned with scientific testing (Jones 470). In a nutshell, animals have rights; hence, unnecessary suffering of the animals should be prevented.
It is also of the essence to note that animals have an integral worth, which may not be comparable to the usefulness that animals offer to humans. Similar to other creatures, animals deserve the right to live freely from unnecessary pain emanating from human activities. The conventional notion that animals are intended for use by humans is unjustified and flawed; hence, should be repealed. Notable is the fact that animals have from time to time demonstrated their capability to honor human privileges. As an example, cats can form deep bonds with humans and would often avoid biting and scratching human. This depicts the fact that animals respect human rights; hence, humans should also have a mutual respect for animal rights.
Opposing Views
There are various notions expressed by those of the opinion that animals do not have rights. One of the hypotheses expressed by those opposed to animal rights is that moral norms in the society are created by moral agents. As such, animals do not qualify as moral agents; hence, what is right for the animals is solely defined by human beings. In this case, humans are the only rational agents with the moral authority to determine what is right and what is wrong. In line with this ideology, animals do not have rights; hence, can be used for various purposes including research, which are deemed appropriate by human beings are the rational agents. In a nutshell, animals do not qualify to enter into any contract pertaining their use; hence, animals do not have rights (Jones 68).
The argument that animals do not have rights is further supported by the notion that it is natural for humans to use animals for different purposes. In any case, animals often strive for survival in the wild where they at times fall prey to various predators. A reflection on the natural world depicts the existence of a hierarchy indicating that some living beings are more valuable than others. In the case of humans and animals, human beings have more value than animals. For this reason, human beings are justified to use animals for pleasure, nutrition, and other essential human dynamics. The mere fact that animals appear distantly related to humans does not mean that they should have rights.
Counterargument and Conclusion
The notions expressed by those of the opinion that animals do not have rights are not justified based on the primary fact that the mere fact that humans are considered moral agents means that they are morally restrained from mistreating animals. As a result, human beings should support animal rights by not inflicting unnecessary pain when carrying our various practices including research. Various human practices that overlook issues on animal rights pose immense harm to the animals. As an example, several animals die as a result of animal testing carried out by scientific researchers. In most cases, the death or harm of animals caused by human practices does not guarantee any direct benefit to humans. In conclusion, the value of animals may not be comparable to the benefits that animals offer when used differently by humans; hence, animals have rights that should be supported.
Work Cited
Boss, Judith. Analyzing Moral Issues: Sixth Edition. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2012. Print.
Cooke, Steve. Perpetual Strangers: Animals and the Cosmopolitan Right. Political Studies 62.4 (2014): 930-944. Print.
Jones, Robert. Animal Rights is a Social Justice Issue. Contemporary Justice Review 18.4 (2015): 467-482. Print.
