Animal Rights and Ethics

Is it ethical for animals to excite the same rights as humans? During this paper I result present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the separate areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, try outing, black marketing, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us close- install(prenominal) to answering many of the question surrounding Animal Rights and Ethics. Animals Rights and Ethics Animal ethics is a complex subject. Despite opinions Animal ethics has secret code to do with someones sentimental love for animal. In fact you dont heretofore have to own or like animals to contend that it is morally premature to mistreat them. For many it raises fundamental questions about the basis of moral rights. For years animal rights activist have tried to prevent animal suffering. Two of the important topics whi ch animal rights activists have brought to the attention of the public are animal testing and hunting.The testing performed on animals has gone on for years and even with certain regulations set in place some of these experiments stinker be extremely cruel and barbaric. Even now it is salvage defended by the scientist performing these acts and our governments as a requisite (evils or) safetyty procedure. They dont want to spray perfume on pot and ca make use of them to get a rash so they use it on animals before it is safe for the public. There have been a lot of negativity surrounding animals testing but some of these tests have lead to medical breakthroughs.Clinicians sack up now use Herceptin to treat Breast Cancer. If it wasnt for animal testing the estimated five million diagnosed diabetics in the United States alone wouldnt be able to use Insulin safely. If we mind at the good side of animal testing it is that humans benefit in long run. The dark side of animal testing is the majority of test subjects or test animals have went blind or died not because of medical advancements but simply because it was necessary to test whether cosmetics like perfume burned when sprayed in eyes of animals instead of humans.The views of animal rights activists are that innocent animals live there life in labs and cages not for the benefit of man but for the benefit of the side by side(p) test. As of today these procedures are viewed as ethical and expectable in our culture. Hunting is an extremely controversial subject because hunting in different cultures message different things. In this country hunting laws were dramatically, changed causing outcry within the hunting community. Activist believes it would be ethical to throw out hunting world wide.Hunters would argue that they have the right to live off the land and its a form of population control. It comes back to the fact hunters dont need meat to live and close hunting is did for fun, not for food. As far a s population control places like Africa have adopted things like Hunting Safaris. On these safaris you can hunt any animal for a certain fee. So as long as you have the money you can go kill a rhino or tiger with no hesitation for fun. To pay and kill innocent animals for a photo ethically seems to be a ludicrous idea.If animals kill plurality it is universally viewed that the animal should be put down but when humans kill animals its the exact opposite. Most Activists have felt if animals dont have rights stack will always be allowed to commit these unethical acts. While hunters receive they cant be held morally pervert if these events are legal by law. For years people have avoided rivalry that all animals merit rights because this would give rights to creatures that are so simple-minded that the idea of them having rights would seem to defy common sense.The second problem is arguing which animals should have rights. The argument that barely the higher level animals have r ights would suggest that we have the right to pick and choose which animals deserve respect. For instance the household animals which we dungeon as pets have the right to live a happy fulfilled life, but the spider you washed down the stink or the slug you or a kid poured salt over did not because they are not a higher animal. Even though it might seem wrong or controversial for one to decide which are higher animals, our society and government have decided this for us.For example household pets such as dogs and cats are hailed to a fault much higher standards in the United States than Cows or Chickens. Which raises the question, is it ethically wrong for Animal rights activists to fight for the rights of some animals and not other(a)s? Animal Cruelty is a subject that spreads far across the United States and into most civilized cultures. Animal cruelty can either be in the form of intentional cry out, simple neglect, or abandonment of animals. Whatever forms the abuse takes, ho wever, the animal that is the victim of the abuse is often helpless and may experience extreme suffering.Animal right activist tone of voice if you dont know how to take care or treat an animal it can be as deadly as physical abuse to care for one. Activist also feel by giving a child a fish, rabbit, or bird to take care of can viewed as intentional neglect or abuse. This is based upon a child not being able to take care of its self but giving another(prenominal) life which depends on its care in order for it to live. This is hardly ever considered by the parent(s) or suppliers of pets and for that that reason organization like PETA and The Humane Society feel it is necessary to step in and make the general public aware of these issues.The Improper housing of animals have been a bitter subject with Animal rights activist as well. This is viewed as immoral because Activist feel it is unfair to house or travel with animals in cages against their will. They see places like the zoo, br eeding houses, and the circus can all be guilty of the in proper housing of animals. The general public along with the zoo, breeding houses and the circus do not see anything wrong with the showcasing of animals but the showcasing is not at the core of what upsets the activist.The argument is that animals are being treated and housed unfairly and immorally for profit or amusement. Governments and a lot of organizations have taken action against the in proper housing and treatment of animals. Law enforcement units have been made to protect and ensure animal safety but still Animal activist feel its not enough. Animal activist feel the best way ethically to make a difference would be to give animals the same rights as humans. Which brings us back to the main topic Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans?The arguments against animal rights center on whether animals behave morally, because rights only have a meaning within a moral community. And as animals dont behav e in a moral way they dont deserve moral treatment from other beings. It is said that animals usually behave selfishly, and look after their own interests, while humans will often help others, even if this is to their own disadvantage. Some feel Animals dont display these characteristics and therefore is not a member of a moral community. Some people enjoy take in meat and fish, and so face a conflict between animal and human interests.The act of killing animals for food is trivial because humans do not need to eat meat in order to survive. So should the human interest to eat meat be satisfied at the expense of the animals? virtuous behavior comes into play when asking this question. To the people that argue animals dont behave morally therefore they dont deserve rights, I ask this. If we behave in an immoral style do we deserve our rights? The view that animals were put on this earth to serve humans comes originally from the Bible, but probably reflects a basic human attitude to wards other species.It was for these reasons that the Animal Welfare Act was put in to place. The Act is an overhaul of pet abuse laws and came into force in England and Wales in 2007. The act was the first inspection of pet laws in 94 years. It replaced the Protection of Animals Act, first passed in 1911 and designed to prevent outright cruelty to animals. The animal welfare act combined to a greater extent than 20 pieces of legislation in to one. The act introduced harsher penalties for neglect and cruelty, including fines at up to 20,000, a maximum jail term of 51 weeks and a lifetime ban of some people keeping pets.It also rose the age of buying a pet from 12 to 16 years old. Although the act banned mutant for cosmetic reasons such as docking (cutting or removal) of the tail the exception was made for working dogs such as those in the police or arm forces. It also allowed such practices as castrating, spaying cats and dogs and ear tagging which were not made illegal. This act has forced people to acknowledge that animals do have rights. In closing, I feel animals deserve more than the rights they have and that we might not deserve all the options and liberties we are granted.It is ethical to treat others as you would like to be treated, should this direction only be meant for man. I think this comes down to knowing what is right or wrong but by saying that I can only consider my view as what is right, which could be viewed by others as wrong. I present this conclusion When hunting becomes a sport instead of a excerpt skill, it is wrong. When one animal is considered better than another that is wrong. When any life is taken out of neglect, spite, hobby or abuse, Animal or human, ethically and morally, we can agree, without bias is wrong.