Should Animals Have Their Own Rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Should Animals Have Their Own Rights - Essay Example The author of the reprot talks about Alan Holland’s review of animal rights which depicts depth and richness, making it a helpful tool in solving disputes and practical problems. This report can be viewed as one side of a discourse with Holland, focusing on the main themes in this area of study. The report will start by characterizing speciesism, including a claim that many individuals are in support of rejecting it, irrespective of the fact that they never fail to sanction what is apparently the obvious effects of rejecting the issue. This paper will relate this failure to the historical views over the interrelations between humans, nature and other animals, which is still depicting wide disparities. This report holds that, while a thorough anti-speciesism values the maxim that ‘humans are an aspect of the natural world’, these dodges will not be present. The paper will reach a conclusion, through a discussion of the consistency of anti-speciesist’s resolu tion of the rewilding nature. The points explained through the paper include that under the issue of predation and eating meat, a guardian farmer of a domesticated animal holds the right to slaughter it for meat or trade it for money and the goodness of humans as compared to the cruelty of the wild, bestows extra rights on the human than the animal. Thirdly, when using the case of rewilding nature, man holds more rights to animals due to the services they offer to the natural world and animals (Signal and Taylor 147-157). Under speciesism and the view on the rights of animals, many people in today’s world will regard that animals hold rights. This is evident from popular parlance, informal polls and recent legislation. In jurisdictions like California, Colorado, Boulder and Berkeley, people are not viewed as the owners of pets, but instead, they are viewed as the guardians to their animal companions (AMVA). During the mid 1990s, the NORC (National Opinion Research Center) at the University of Chicago questioned a sample representing the American population, whether they were in agreement with this statement: â€Å"animals should hold the moral rights that humans have†. From the surveys, 35% of the respondent in one survey and 39% in the second were in agreement or strongly in agreement with the statement (Regan 205-211). The results from the survey could understate the universal sentiments held about animals, because not all anti-vivisectionists and vegetarians hold that animals posses rights. Further, it is not that all the people that regard animals have rights, view that they hold as much rights as human beings. For example, it is a fact that humans and all species of animals posses similar moral rights. For instance, humans hold the right to engage in their religious practices, and eagles hold the right to fly in the sky, but humans do not hold the right to flight, and neither do eagles hold rights to religious practices. The comparison shows that in the case that a given entity hold certain rights, the rights are linked to the capacity of the given entity. For example, only the creatures that can engage in religious practices hold the rights to practice religion, and only the creatures that can fly hold the right to flight. However, it is not that all capacities are linked to a given area of rights, for example, considering that humans hold the capacity to murder, but they do not hold the r