Animal Rights Essay
1091 Words5 Pages
Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to humans. As pointed out by Jan Narveson "morality is a sort of agreement among rational, independent, self-interested persons who have something to gain from entering into such an agreement" (192). In order to have the ability to obtain rights one must be consciously able to enter into an agreement, non-human animals are…show more content…
Contrary to Narveson, I do not believe that animals should be denied of moral consideration because of their limited ability to harm humans. First of all, this statement is false animals clearly have the ability to attack if so desired not by the human, but by the decision of the animal. In our sculpted urban environments animals are exiled and in relatively minimal human contact. Such predacious animals, that have historically attacked humans, have been kept out of our society by enormous architectural fences. These animals that attack usually need vast open spaces to hunt game, these environments hardly exist any more, and these animals are rarely in contact with humans. These urban areas do not attract animals with the capacity to attack humans but that is not to say that these animals do not have the ability to harm us, we have just manipulated our environment so that they are on the outside. One thousand years ago, humans would have been more likely to have been attacked by an animal. Our modern buildings and infrastructure isolate us from these creatures and has also reduced their population making it less dangerous for a human to worry about being struck by a beast on their way to work.
Also, Narveson states that "Humans have excellent reason to be fearful about each other" (193). She goes on to state that humans not only have the capacity to harm one another but are often "interested in doing so"(194). In the case of an animal
People clearly want the benefits that derive from animal research. They also want animals to be well-treated and to undergo a minimum of pain and distress. These desires result from our values, from the importance we ascribe to both human and animal life.
But decisions about the use of animals should be based both on reason and values. It makes no sense to sacrifice future human health and well being by not using animals in research today. In fact, it would be immoral and selfish not to use animals in research today, given the harm that could accrue to future generations if such research were halted.
The promise that animal research holds for generations of humans remains undiminished
The majority of Americans agree that animal research must continue. But legislators rarely hear from this majority, whereas they are bombarded by appeals from the small minority who wish to stop or severely curtail such research. Many scientific, medical, and patient groups have come out strongly in favor of humanely conducted animal research. The National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine would like to add their voices to the chorus of support for animal research.
We owe our good health to past investigators and the animals they studied. As we decide on the future of animal research, we should keep in mind the future generations who will look back at us and ask if we acted wisely.