REPORT

on
ANIMAL RIGHTS
MARK LOUIE C. CONSOLACION & YVES AKEL V. TAYO |
ENGLISH IS FOR ACADEMIC | MAY 14, 2021

TO BE PASS TO: JOSELITO TOLENTINO

ABSTRACT:
From an ethical perspective, this report examines the topic of animal rights. It starts by
stating that this topic has gained traction as advocates demand that animals be granted
more rights. The report discusses the human exceptionalism viewpoint, which holds that
humans have a higher moral status than other animals due to their advanced cognitive
abilities.

To show that animal rights can be denied on ethical grounds, the report employs a variety
of ethical philosophies, including utilitarianism, Kantian philosophy, and virtue ethics. It
then deconstructs some of the claims advanced by animal rights activists and exposes
their flaws.

The report ends by stating that animals cannot be afforded the same rights as humans as
long as humans are forced to live a full and happy life.

INTRODUCTION:
Humans and animals have always had a symbiotic relationship, with humans taking a
dominant role and manipulating animals for their own gain. This historical view of
animals as beings with no moral rights has been vigorously contested in recent years. Over
the years, a variety of debates about the status of animals have arose. These debates center
around whether or not animals should be granted privileges similar to those granted to
humans. Over the last two decades, the modern animal rights movement has gained
considerable traction. Members of these campaigns argue that animals should be given
rights, which would restrict how they are used.

On the other hand, animal rights opponents assert that human beings are the only
creatures who deserve rights due to their higher moral status. This paper will set out
perform a critique of the animal rights arguments with the human exceptionalism
perspective in mind. It will then make use of a number of ethical theories including
utilitarianism and Kantian theory to demonstrate that animals do not deserve similar
rights to humans.

WHAT ARE ANIMAL RIGHTS?

Animal rights- is the philosophy according to which some, or all, animals are entitled to
the possession of their own existence and that their most basic interests such as the need
to avoid suffering should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human
beings. That is, some species of animals have the right to be treated as individuals, with
their own desires and needs, rather than as unfeeling property.

PAGE 1
The welfare of an animal includes its physical and mental state and we consider that good
animal welfare implies both fitness and a sense of well-being. Any animal kept by man,
must at least, be protected from unnecessary suffering. We believe that an animal’s
welfare, whether on farm, in transit, at market or at a place of laughter should be
considered in terms of ‘five freedoms’

1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst- by ready access to fresh water and a diet to

maintain full health and vigor.

2. Freedom from Discomfort- by providing an appropriate environment including

shelter and a comfortable resting area.

3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease- by prevention or rapid diagnosis and

treatment.

4. Freedom to Express Normal Behavior- by providing sufficient space, proper

facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.

5. Freedom from Fear and Distress- by ensuring conditions and treatment which

avoid mental suffering.

An Ethical Analysis of Animal Rights

The issue of animal rights has slowly emerged as a controversial topic in need of ethical
consideration. Using a number of ethical theories, this issue can be analyzed in order to
determine if animals deserve rights as the proponents of animal rights assert. A major
perspective used to deny animal rights is human exceptionalism. Human beings differ
mentally from other species, according to human exceptionalism, and as a result of these
distinctions, humans have a special status. Humans have more advanced cognitive skills,
which gives them a higher moral status than other species. Animals lack the ability to
follow rules since they are driven by desires and often act on impulse. Unlike human
beings, who can suppress their desires and choose the right action, animals are compelled
by their desires. Due to this lack of ability to act as moral agents, animals cannot be
granted autonomy since they do not have a moral status. Virtue ethics theory also
supports the denial of some rights to animals. According to this theory, the ethical action
is one that is done with good motives or without vicious motives. The character of the
agent who carries out the action is analyzed to assess the ethical nature of the action
taken.

Animal Rights Advocacy

The notion of animal rights stems from the belief that animals have valid claims to
existence, which might be translated into actual rights. Dogan (2011) asserts that animals
have “a right to life, to liberty, to subsistence, to relief from suffering, and to security
against attacks on their physical existence” (p.473). Animal rights advocates state that the
interests of animals are of vital importance to them and they should not be limited by
human beings. Herzog, Dinoff and Page (1997) observe that the animal rights perspective
involves a fundamental shift in world-view. Human beings are brought up knowing that
they have a higher moral status and intelligence than animals.

PAGE 2
`

A strong case of animal rights is made by the philosopher Professor Tom Regan.
He argues that animals have rights based on the moral obligation of human beings
not to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals. Traditionally, there is
a strong co-relation between the capacity for higher order thoughts and the
possession of rights. Animal welfare supporters argue that denying animals' rights
has a negative effect on human morality. Although the rights of animals are
debatable, everyone agrees that all humans have such rights. Human beings must
behave in a way that does not infringe on the rights of others, and any action that
encourages the infringement of human rights is unwelcome. Animals can be
treated inhumanely if civil rights are denied. Animal abuse is one of the most
severe manifestations of this inhumanity.

The Conception
The basic assumption of any argument in favor of animal rights is that
(nonhuman) animals, or at least the most intelligent or sentient animals, are
independent and capable of managing their own lives, that they have basic
individual interests, e.g., avoiding suffering, and should therefore be entitled to
rights similar to those granted to human beings, such rights, of course, always
being granted to animals by humans. Here a distinction may be made between
“moral agents,” i.e., adult humans who are able to formulate and abide by moral
principles in their actions and “moral patients,” i.e., nonhuman species, as well as
certain human exceptions such as young children and disabled persons unable to
argue and act at the same level, yet still entitled to rights to afford them proper
protection. In a philosophical context, also considering the Aristotelian or

PAGE 3
utilitarian view of moral actions, animal rights could be seen in relation to
deontological moral theory (Kant), deontological morals having to comply with
clearly defined principles such as rights. The difference with the classical Kantian
view is that in this case, rights are granted not only to human beings, but also to
(nonhuman) animals.

In an attempt to safeguard absolute rights for animals, Regan has suggested the
total abolition of the use of animals in medical research. The implementation of
Regan’s recommendation by banning the use of animals in scientific research is a
regressive approach, which may hinder the full realization of various medical
research findings. For example, the use of animals in scientific research has played
an indispensable role in advancing scientific understanding of human beings.
Specifically, basic biological research focusing on the various interventional
treatment has relied on animals for testing the viability and safety of a different
medication before dispensing them for large-scale human and animal treatment.
Implementation of Regan’s recommendation in an attempt to accomplish absolute
animal right will be dealt a significant blow to medical and scientific research.

Discussion
In spite of the differing viewing surrounding the presence or lack of animal rights, critics
and supporters all accept that animals have importance. However, this value is not
equivalent due to the major variations between humans and animals. Human
exceptionalism is portrayed by animal rights advocates as a derogatory trait that should be
eradicated. They assert that human beings should be treat animals as equal and avoid
violence towards them. Morrison (2009) reveals that the animal rights activists never
argue against nonhuman animal predators. The predatorial behavior of animals against
other animals is tolerated even though it inflicts harm to the prey. In addition to this, the
advocacy for vegetarianism by animal rights advocates is detrimental to animals. Hudson
(2011) demonstrates that vegetarianism is harmful to animals since it leads to
displacement of animals from agricultural lands. In addition to this, the advocacy for

PAGE 4
vegetarianism by animal rights advocates is detrimental to animals. Hudson (2011)
demonstrates that vegetarianism is harmful to animals since it leads to displacement of
animals from agricultural lands.

Conclusion
This report set out to research the animal rights issue from an ethical perspective.
It has shown that it is not practical to accept animals to the community of equals
regardless of the huge differences in cognitive skills between them and human
beings. Animals should have rights because they are living beings with the right to
live freely as long as they have the will to. Humans are not in a position to
determine when an animal should die or what its life should be like. Animals have
an inherent value that cannot be separated from them just like humans. While
calling for better treatment and care for animals is a human and noble endeavor,
the idea of granting animals rights as if they were people is detrimental to human
existence. Such a move would subvert human rights since it would undermine the
ability of human beings to utilized animals for human well-being and prosperity.

Recommendation
It is important to end all forms of cruelty. It can be argued that animals exist to
serve, and human beings must appreciate the type of service they provide. Human
beings must learn to appreciate the type of service animals provide, because they
provide this service to the point of death. Thus, it is not unethical or immoral to
slaughter animals for food consumption. The best thing to do is to develop
efficient and effective mechanisms applicable to slaughterhouses in order to
reduce the pain and suffering of animals brought to slaughter.

References
 Aaltola, E. (2011). The Philosophy behind the Movement: Animal Studies
versus Animal Rights. Society & Animals, 19 (1), 393-406
 Boddice, R. (2011). Anthropocentrism: Humans, Animals, Environments. NJ:
Brill.
 Cochrane, (2009). Do Animals Have an Interest in Liberty? Political Studies,
57(3), 660-679.
 Dogan, A. (2011). A Defense of Animal Rights. J Agric Environ Ethics, 24(1),
473–491.
 Hudson, L. (2011). A Species of Thought: Bare Life and Animal Being.
Antipode, 43(5), 1659-1678.

PAGE 5
 Morrison, A.R. (2009). An Odyssey with Animals: A Veterinarian’s
Reflections on the Animal Rights & Welfare Debate. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 Phelps, N. (2013). Changing the Game: Why the Battle for Animal Liberation
Is So Hard and How We Can Win It. NY: Lantern Books.
 Phillips, J.C. et al. (2010). Activism and Trust: Animal Rights vs. Animal
Welfare in the Food Supply Chain. Journal of Food Distribution Research,
41(1), 91-95.

PAGE 6