An Argument about Animal Right - Essay Example

So, are vegetarians justified when they underpin the necessity of respect to animal rights? This paper attempts to fathom to what extent these vegetarians can be convincing by summarizing the reasons for which different people eat what they eat and continue to believe in what they believe in this context. Above all, the study seeks to confirm whether animals have their distinct rights as some authors claim. First is Fraser (2000) who says that she decided to become a vegetarian for two simple reasons that: (1) she was broke and (2) she was not and had never thought to become a lesbian.

Unlike Walker’s (2004) deep conviction that killing and eating animals is predatory, and too, that it is concrete obstruction of animals’ rights of being, Fraser (2000) portrays that to her, avoiding meat and meat products was self betrayal. Fraser’s (2000) vegetarianism in the first place was volatile and induced to counter particular personal problems. But, as Fraser (2000) argues, later she became convinced that a human being ought to do what his or her mind thinks safe. At first, Fraser felt no pity for animals as expressed by her retreat to using meat and meat products.

However, later, Fraser (2000) sometimes felt that using animals thus was unjustified especially on ‘animals’ part’. . Singer argues that human beings are ruled and guided by their conscience. Singer (68) and Fraser suggest that if one feels haunted by the mere idea of killing animals in any way, then it will simply be safe to avoid both the act of killing and eating whatever meat and meat products emanating from animal killing. Well, there is no way different minds of different vegetarians could possibly be mistaken for thinking along a similar line of argument.

Walker (2004) goes even further to put her shoes in those of a chicken being slaughtered. Most religious beliefs make humans super creatures that must control and rule the earth, but according to Walker’s (2004) position, animals have their distinct rights to exist like any other creature from birth to death. Similarly, Masson (13) suggests animals are distinct entities and have their own jurisdiction but they are overpowered by other creatures, human beings. But one may counter this argument.

For example, while domestic animals are naturally highly prone to predation if left on their own, humans provide them with stiff protection. The question is; who pays for this? Animals must then pay in a way. Masson (14) says this is right but it is mandatory that they should be killed and eaten to insinuate payment and tribute to a particular farmer. But this argument may be said to be killing itself. If the farm animals are left to graze in the wild, they are killed by the wild animals. In this sense, they do not kill themselves either way.

Foer (2009) challenges the killing behavior of humans as says that humans are extraneous in this context. From collective concerns of Masson (14) for domestic animals as collective pact, Foer (2009) isolates dogs and calls them ‘man’s best