Animal Rights Analysis - Essay Example

Animal Rights According to animal rights, all non-human beings have a right to possess their own lives. Life means that there are some situations where it is immoral to kill an animal, but there are some cases when it is morally permissible to do some things to non-human animals that would be immoral to do to a human being. Critically, when a society strikes that balance between these competing interests and characterizes that balance as a moral right it is the balance which is fundamental: The fundamental right of the animal to be protected against violent treatment and killing.

Within the animal rights movement, every animal, from conception to natural death, has a certain value given by God. The second strand employs the arguments from the field of legal philosophy, specifically natural law, claiming that the right-to life is a fundamental right which should be protected by law. On the other hand, if an animal and its existence threaten human life, it is morally permissible to kill this animal: for instance, outcasts with rabies, extreme aggressiveness of an animal or invasion of animals such as wild foxes or wolves.

Also, gene engineering and cloning need sacrifices in order to protect human live and find treatment for incurable diseases. Also, all medicines and treatment methods are tested on animals to be sure that they are safe for human beings. In this case, it is morally permissible to do these things to non-human animals. This balance is an expression, then, of core values, of basic societal choices. This is the point where the distinction between rights and boundaries collapses since Moral rights- beyond the core-become an expression of the kind of particularized societal choice of which fundamental boundaries are an expression.

Moral boundaries are designed, thus, to allow communities to make and live by those differing balances which they deem fundamental. In sum, treatment of animals should be based on general moral rights and rules, but a human life and human existence should be the core of moral decision-making. ReferencesNussbaum, M.C., Sunstein, C.R. (2004). Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press. Compare and Contrast of the Web SitesBoth web sites discuss the problem of animal rights and treatment of animals.

The main similarity is in perspectives they are written from. Both web sites UUFETA (Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and Animal Freedom are based on religious perspectives incorporating moral and ethical point of view. Both web sites state that the community should always seek to adopt the highest standard of animal rights around. Both sites agree that the voice of one individual in a modern society will normally carry little weight unless the demands which that individual articulates come from within the central elite and its decision-making body until those concerned get together with others who share a common interest and aggregate their demands into a program for action.

UUFETA argues that "We recognize that our relationship with animals reflects how we deal with the environment" (UUFETA 2006). In contrast, Animal Freedom discusses different views on the problem based on ethical values and importance of animals for human beings. They underline that "the Catholic Church'' says it is legitimate for humans to use animals for food and clothing, and to domesticate them for work or leisure" (Animal Freedom, 2006). Also, it is often asserted in the regulatory area that decision-making creates the danger of wrong interpretation of the law.

Its yardstick for scrutiny must be "up to standard"-the moral standard. Both web sites are aimed to protect rights of animals but it seems Animal Freedom is more objective and impartial than UUFETA. UUFETA follows the maximalist approach which goes even further since, it is argued, while it would satisfy the legal order, it would not dissatisfy the other legal orders. Animal Freedom shows that the maximalist approach does not work, cannot work and, for good reason, has been rejected by the many moralists.

They state that animals should be protected from aggressiveness and brutality, but it is important to remember that human life is the highest value we have. References1. UUFETA. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.uucb.org/UUFETA/ 2. Vatican official calls for more just relationship with animals. (2006) Animal Freedom. Retrieved from http://www.animalfreedom.org/english/column/vatican.html