Research Argument - Admission/Application Essay Example

Animal Rights I am not a lawyer, let alone a judge, but even a young child knows that all animals must be protected. Thegoal of is to explore the contemporary debates depicted on theoretical arguments for and against animal rights. Legal system should recognize such rights one-step at a time. Animals should have rights since they have practical autonomy. This in other terms called consciousness is eminent in animals as well as human beings. Drawing on scientific evidence, it is pertinent note that many animals have abilities that should qualify them for rights.

This report seeks to explain why animal rights should be respected. It will also analyze a few arguments by Richard Posner and Peter Singer regarding this issue. According to Richard Posner, he argues that people are not likely to want to give rights to animals. Some rights would be damaging to animals themselves since they lack the element that governs them, unlike humans. However, other findings by Peter Singer argue that human beings have the ability to go "beyond instinct," and that theoretical arguments for rights, can be persuasive.

The aspect of “speciesism” mischaracterizes the moral issues at stake. If people are to be on the side of animals, it must be for reasons different from those used by others who object to the current human use and mistreatment of animals. (Sunstein & Nussbaum, 32) It is arguable whether animals count as property, but from a different direction, others have claimed that human's current practices are entirely inconsistent with human moral judgments. In my view, I believe that animals should not be made to suffer.

Nonetheless, human beings make animals suffer, often for little or no reason. Surveying human practices in connection with meat eating, science, and entertainment, it is pertinent to note that one's own moral judgments call for radical change. Richard sharply disagrees. He believes that animals should continue to be treated as property. Many social gains come from the practices that Singer deplores, and there is no adequate reason for dramatic changes from what we now do. I do believe that lines should be drawn, and animals should be protected.

However, exceptions should be allowed at some point only if it is for a good cause. Killing an animal for the purposes of feeding is one of the exceptions. However, this should be done in a quick and painless way. The evidence can be drawn from the Bible where God gave human beings power over all animals (Singer, Web: http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/200106--.htm). Despite some very important differences, both utilitarian and animal rights theories suggest that the principle of equal consideration of interests should be applied to animals.

A virtue of this principle is that it provides a rational basis for balancing interests and is ‘blind’ to species membership, mitigating against the bias which otherwise inevitably arises when humans ‘balance’ their interests with those of animals. Instead, judgments emanate across species with individuals accorded interests (or rights) which are not contingent on species membership but on underlying characteristics, such as sentiency. Strictly applied, the principle might rule out the fate of the animals today to further human interests including food and entertainment (Sankoff & William,102).

Personally, it would be better if all humankind could view animal welfare as a morally accepted virtue of taking precautions while subjecting them to suffering or killing them. Therefore, the animal should be treated in as humanely as possible. The position of animal welfare upholds that there is no animal interest that cannot be intervened if the penalties of the intervening are sufficiently beneficial to human beings (Wolfe, 224). Conclusion It would be wrong to assume that we can, move directly from an acceptance of the equal consideration of interest’s principle to the conclusion reached by pro-animal philosophers without additional arguments.

The major limitation here is that the principle provides no content to the term ‘interests'. The principle does not suggest that humans and animals should be treated equally. The interests of humans and animals differ, so that, for example, humans may have an interest in a claim to free speech that is obviously not shared by animals. Humans and animals are alike, as sentient beings since they have the capacity to suffer or to experience enjoyment and happiness. This entitles them to equal moral consideration.

His argument is not that the capacity of humans and animals to suffer is the same. Great care needs to be exercised when comparing the interests of different species. It is eminent to acknowledge that the mental capacity of humans can lead them to suffer more than animals in other circumstances. Rather, an assessment needs to be made to figure out the extent to which each suffers, with priority given to relieving the greater suffering. In a situation of competing interests, this requires an aggregation of preferences, with the better outcome being, that which maximizes satisfaction.

Singer’ s approach is more subtle than a classical utilitarian approach — which provides little guidance as to the content of pain and pleasure and applies the balancing act impersonally — since it turns on a subjective expression of preference by individuals ( Donaldson & Kymlicka, 112). Work Cited Sunstein, Cass & Nussbaum, Martha. Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Apr 1, 2004 Print. Sankoff, Peter & William, Steven. Animal Law in Australasia: A New Dialogue.

Sidney: Federation Press, 2009 Print. Wolfe, Cary. Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Bio-political Frame. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Dec 10, 2012 Print. Donaldson, Sue & Kymlicka, Will. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Nov 24, 2011 Print. Singer, Peter Utilitarian Philosophers Web: Monday, June 11, 2001 http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/200106--.htm