Animals in my opinion should only be tested on in my opinion for medical purposes only. For example if we think we may have a new medicine, vaccination then animals are perfect to be tested on. However problems arise in my opinion when people test cosmetics on animals. That in my opinion is cruel. Cosmetics are things the human race want but we don't need them to survive. If testing on animals can aid the human race then we should be able to do so .
Giving rights to animals is up to the owners of individual animals, not society as a whole. It is a far fetched idea to give rights to animals similar to other human minorities (giving them equal opportunities for jobs, allowing them to raise families, etc). Animal rights should really only apply to wild animals.
Rights are a product of human society, and not objective things. Rights we attribute to animals are equally subjective. It's silly to claim that someone [i]has[/i] rights, as though they're just floating in some invisible ether inside all of us. It's just one of those things that are a result of human evolution, like shitting in toilets or parting your hair.
Animals are never treated with respect and equality like us humans. Some of you reading this are probably thinking, "Its an animal who cares?" well many people do. Cats and dogs don't have a voice so we have to be one for them. They cannot verbally communicate with us explaining what they do not want to be done on them. So that's where we come along in and make sure that the are treated just like humans which means they get respected and are not being harmed in any way. Why test on animals? Its torturing and even killing them. If that was a person being tortured on, we would all immediately panic but because its a bunny, or a monkey, or whatever animal, to most it does not matter when it really should. Just think if that was you.
Animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives 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. Advocates oppose the assignment of moral value and fundamental protections on the basis of species membership alone—an idea known since 1970 as speciesism, when the term was coined by Richard D. Ryder—arguing that it is a prejudice as irrational as any other.They maintain that animals should no longer be viewed as property or used as food, clothing, research subjects, entertainment, or beasts of burden.
Advocates approach the issue from a variety of perspectives. The abolitionist view is that animals have moral rights, which the pursuit of incremental reform may undermine by encouraging human beings to feel comfortable with using them. Gary Francione's abolitionist position promotes ethical veganism. He argues that animal rights groups that pursue welfare concerns, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), risk making the public feel comfortable about its use of animals. He calls such groups "the new welfarists." PETA argues that Francione's criticism does little to help alleviate the suffering of individual animals and also trivializes the efforts of workers in the field who handle cruelty cases. It also creates divisiveness within the animal liberation movement instead of focusing on shared goals. Tom Regan, as a deontologist, argues that at least some animals are "subjects-of-a-life", with beliefs, desires, memories, and a sense of their own future, who must be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. Sentiocentrism is the theory that sentient individuals are the subject of moral concern and therefore are deserving of rights. Protectionists seek incremental reform in how animals are treated, with a view to ending animal use entirely, or almost entirely. This position is represented by the philosopher Peter Singer. As a preference utilitarian, Singer's focus is not on moral rights, but on the argument that animals have interests—particularly an interest in not suffering—and that there is no moral or logical reason not to award those interests equal consideration. Multiple cultural traditions around the world—such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism—also espouse some forms of animal rights.
In parallel to the debate about moral rights, animal law is now widely taught in law schools in North America, and several prominent legal scholars support the extension of basic legal rights and personhood to at least some animals. The animals most often considered in arguments for personhood are bonobos and chimpanzees. This is supported by some animal rights academics because it would break through the species barrier, but opposed by others because it predicates moral value on mental complexity, rather than on sentience alone.
Animals have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We therefore are obliged to take that interest into consideration and to respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her. However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans, because their interests are not always the same as ours and some rights would be irrelevant to animals’ lives. For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and therefore doesn’t have the right to vote, since that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.
Note that this argument is under the assumptions that (1) moral realism is true, and (2) moral rights exist. Under such a viewpoint, I don't see any non-egoistic epistemology that denies animals rights. Moral platonism lacks explanatory power, leaving the a priori most likely root of moral epistemology to be nominalistic. If nominalism entails, then moral naturalism can be seen as akin to observations within the animal world. Since I hold physicalism to be true, any mental states that we have reason to avoid should be avoided, and that is the fundamental consequentialist principle of ethics. Thus, animals should not be denied all rights. [Sidenote: this argument is based on assumptions such as moral realism, denying which even humans wouldn't have rights; the argument is basically, if humans should have rights, animals should have rights via utilitarian consequentialism.]
I would not say same . For example in our society so many people have dogs. And they take very well care of dogs. Sometimes i feel ashamed about it. Because sometimes dogs eat more expensive meals than people. I feel disgusted with humanity too. I don't say we dont have to have any pets. But i am saying we should not care animals more than humanity
Animals are equally living beings just like us humans. Without animals, we can't survive. Without plants, animals can't survive and therefore we, as humans, can't survive. We need to respect life's resources if we want to carry on the human race. We cannot just violate animals when we feel like it. Animals help us to survive. I feel disgusted with humanity when they violate animals. It's is really, utterly disgusting.
Rights are a human thought developed for humans. They only have power when one conforms to another or a group. Therefore, rights are subjective things created by humans. They hold no value in nature. As for life there is no difference between an insect and a human. The human may be more complex in mind and structure but both are equally alive. And they equally have an opportunity for life. In conclusion, on your statement that "animals don't have any rights at all", it negates itself because humans are animals.
The motion carries truth within it in the following way. Animals have no rights because all their rights have either been violated or removed from them by mankind. People talk about the existence or non existence of morality. If objective morality does exist within life on this planet it is 'an inclusive morality' that encompasses all life forms without exception. Look at the difficulties that man has had when he tries to reference his 'moral 'aspirations against a fictitious reference of a human exclusive model. Ask the people who really knew something and they will explain it to you.
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Animals are "subjects-of-a-life", they are valuable in themselves, not for human use. They are inhabitants of this planet after all, right? To treat animals as property and things and not as sentient living things violates standards of decency. When I see things like SeaWorld and animal experimentation, I feel disgusted with humanity.