The Process of Evolution and the Animal Rights - Research Paper Example

?Outline: Introduction: I:The evolution Argument A: Humans as the most highly evolved B: Discussion of what this “dominion” or evolutionary status denotes II: Rights A: The origins of rights B: Thinking and self actualization a uniquely human quality III: Disparity and differences A: No emotions B: No thoughts C: Ultimately comparing two dissimilar entities IV: The custodianship of domesticated animals A: If animal rights existed fully, then these would be extinct B: Humans have moral and ethical duties to provide protection and furtherance of nature V: Rights A: Animals cannot have rights due to the fact that they do not have reciprocal duties B: Without duties, rights are meaningless and cannot have any merit VI: Slippery Slope Argument A: Animals rights – plant rights? B: Where does it end? Conclusion Many individuals seek animal rights as an extension of the rights that have been granted thus far during the 20th and 21st centuries. Even though it may seem as somewhat absurd, animal rights activists oftentimes promote the idea that animal rights should be appreciated and understood in a comparable manner as with basic human rights. As might be readily noted, such a sharp stance with regards to the issue of animal rights necessarily encourages many individuals to be categorically against further animal rights. This is of course due to the inherent belief that many individuals have that animals cannot be considered as sentient beings; therefore, extending any form of rights or the expectation thereof, is tantamount to extending rights to an unconscious object. Ultimately, the debate is somewhat circular due to the fact that neither animal rights activists nor their counterparts who advocate a reduction in animal rights rules and practice can definitively prove that consciousness exists within animals and therefore is worthy of a level of respect. With respect to this brief analysis, the author will propose an opposing viewpoint with regards to the inherent belief that animals should engender further rights and protections under law. Whereas it should not be noted that this analysis will take a contrary in view of the fact that animals are important, should be respected, and preserved for future generations, it will be the express intent of this author to engage the reader with an understanding for the fact that many of the fundamental arguments that animal rights activists put forward as evidence for why further animal rights should be manifested within the current world are fundamentally flawed. Firstly, it must be understood that humans are most certainly the most evolved creatures that exist on earth. By means of the process of evolution, humans have a degree of power and control with regards to their environment. For many years, individuals of a religious persuasion believed that God had given mankind “dominion” over the earth. However, whether or not one believes in evolution or whether or not one believes in intelligent design is not the issue; rather, the issue is the fact that the overall intellects and functional capacity of humans necessarily places them in a situation that they are able to make a discerning judgments and determine value based upon the needs and rights of the environment around them. Said one author, “There are a lot of people in the animal rights movement who can be very passionate and aggressive, and I applaud people's passion, but when people are judgmental and aggressive, all they end up doing is getting other people to turn away in irritation” (Monastersky 12). For instance, many individuals point to the fact that further rights should be extended to animals. However, an understanding of rights and how these rights originate ultimately is derived from philosophical the value and the means through which a level of inequality is represented. For this very reason, it was not until the 20th century that individuals within society began to take note of the fact that a moral and ethical interpretation of the world necessitated that rights and privileges be extended to all humans; regardless of skin color, national origin, or ethnicity (Aaltola 401). One anti-animal rights activist noted, “Animal rights activists talk about cruelty and torture, some backing their assertions by publishing out-of-date photographs of 'experiments' banned long ago. This is a misrepresentation. The work we do is performed with compassion, care, humanity and humility. I have never seen an animal suffer pain” (Nobis 44). However, the thread of commonality that exists between this delineation of rights has to do with the fact that all of the rights that have been discussed and delineated have been directed towards fellow humans. Ultimately, the level of equality that helps to underscore these rights was a can to a realization for the fact that no one individual was better than any other; and observation and realization that has been in existence since the earliest Democratic movements within Europe and the United States. However, through the analysis of this particular point, the reader can come to the appreciation for the fact that a fundamental flaw exists with regards to extending these rights to animals and other living entities; Namely, the fact that animals cannot be compared to humans and do not have the same thoughts, feelings, emotions, self actualization, consciousness, or many of the other aspects that has helped to define humanity to the philosopher. This should not be meant to infer that animals are worthless and should not be prized, treasured, well treated, and cared for; rather, it merely underscores the fact that a fundamental break exists between delineating animal-rights and promoting human rights. Even though this differential is easy to understand, it is worth mentioning due to the fact that so many individuals have misunderstood it and sought to extend universal rights to nonhuman entities; opening Pandora’s box for extending rights and privileges to trees, plants, or bushes. Another salient argument with regards to providing a contrary in view of animal-rights has to do with the fact that if animal-rights activists had their way, domesticated animals, including dogs, cats, cows, chickens, and a litany of others, would be extinct. Although this seems as somewhat sarcastic and extreme, the fact of the matter is that animal-rights activists almost invariably ascribe to the view that animals are not intended to be cast by people and must have their fundamental rights respected by allowing them to exist within nature (Mills 31). As such, animal-rights activists can be seen as something of extreme “survival of the fittest”. However, now that humans have integrated with animals and a symbiotic relationship has formed, breaking with this tradition and engaging a new dynamic would be more harmful than can be imagined. Said one critic, “If we stop breeding domesticated animals, some would survive and some would go extinct” (Zhau 607). Indeed, the entire species of animals would go extinct and the degree to which human interaction with animals can take place in the future would necessarily be diminished. They further philosophical argument that can be engaged with regards animal-rights has to do with the fact that rights are born from the ability to sync; not from the ability to suffer. As Immanuel Kant so eloquently stated, “I think – and therefore I am”, the ability to self actualize and understand the reality of one’s existence is a fundamental complement of being able to claim the rights that have thus far been discussed A further philosophical complement of the arguments that have been put forward is with regards to the fact that animals cannot have rights due to the fact that they do not have any duties. Even a cursory review of philosophy reveals the fact that human rights and the “privileges” that a number of philosophers have discussed throughout the decades and centuries are fundamentally predicated upon the fact that rights do exist; however, they are categorized, classified, and synthesized based upon the fact that they require a tacit and innate level of remembrance that the human has duties in order to attain these rights. Due to the fact that an animal is incapable of engaging with duties, other than one that is trained – and therefore would defeat the entire purpose of realizing and understanding the importance of these duties, it is futile to engage the same argument with regards to animal-rights as has been done with respect to human rights. As has been briefly referenced earlier within the analysis, perhaps the most powerful argument against providing further rights to animals is what can be termed as the “slippery slope” argument. Ultimately, this slippery slope argument reveals the fact that if rights are extended to animals then they must also be extended to plants (Williams & Simon 13). Due to the fact that plants are in fact of living and have been proven to respond to pain, logic would dictate that a further extension of rights to animals would necessarily engender a further extension the rights to other animate objects as well; leading to something of an infinite regression and nonsensical level of understanding for the world in which we live. From the information that is thus far been provided, it can definitively be noted that although it is most certainly the expectation of this author that humans should provide proper stewardship for the resources and environment that they live in, extending further rights, of a human nature, to animals would be folly; representing a situation which infinite regression with lead humanity to begin respecting the rights of other non-sentient beings that do not fulfill the basic requirement for the distribution and appreciation of these rights and the respective duties that they incur in return. This issue is fundamentally challenging due to the fact that it provides the analyst with a contradictory level of emotional attachment. Although this author is most certainly fond of animals and greatly appreciates their presence within life, seeking to extend the same level of rights and appreciation for these animals that humans enjoy would not only take away from the definition and understanding of “animal” it would also diminish and take away from the interpretation and understanding of “human”. As has been readily noted through the philosophical examination of human thought that is thus far been engaged, seeking to redefine and diminish the level of humanity that is exhibited throughout the world by extending the same rights and privileges to animals would be tantamount to a complete reversal of the exceptional nature through which the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, and a litany of other human rights campaigns have been launched, engaged, and furthered throughout the past several centuries. Works Cited Aaltola, Elisa. "The Philosophy Behind The Movement: Animal Studies Versus Animal Rights." Society & Animals 19.4 (2011): 393-406. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Mills, Gordon. "The Successes And Failures Of Policing Animal Rights Extremism In The UK 2004-2010." International Journal Of Police Science & Management 15.1 (2013): 30-44.Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Monastersky, Richard. "Animal Researchers' Homes Are Attacked. (Cover Story)." Chronicle Of Higher Education 54.26 (2008): A1-A13. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Nobis, Nathan. "Carl Cohen's ‘Kind’ Arguments For Animal Rights And Against Human Rights." Journal Of Applied Philosophy 21.1 (2004): 43-59. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Williams, Dede, and Simon Robinson. "Animal Rights Activists Target Bayer Manager." ICIS Chemical Business Americas 271.2 (2007): 13. Business Source Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Zhau, Aio. "When Animal Rights Turns Ugly." Nature Biotechnology 26.6 (2008): 603-605. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Read More