In Defense of Animal Rights

In Defense of Animal Rights There have been many arguments as to who should actually be given full rights; whether it is the animals or the people. The arguments have been on the line that people should always be given full rights and at whatever circumstances, the rights of the animals should not supersede or even near the levels of human rights. However, other instances note that the animals ought to enjoy full rights and even though the human rights should always supersede the rights of the animals, the animals too should be entitled to freedom. It is noted that the two major opposing views proposed by Peter Singer and Tom Regan in this argument is that of utilitarianism and the liberalist view respectively. Where, the liberal view as proposed by Tom Regan seeks to protect full rights of people and that it should not compared with that of the animals while the utilitarian view as proposed by Peter Singer seeks to have the animals enjoy their rights. For example, when a poacher kills the lion, he or she has committed a great offence by violating the rights of the animals. This paper therefore looks at these two opposing views and to a larger extent takes a position that either defends the animals' rights or takes a utilitarianism view. The views as expressed by Tom Regan are right; where, even though the human beings should extend the moral principles to the animals, the rights of the human beings should at all cost not be comprised in the pursuance of the rights of the animals; however, the views as expressed by Peter Singer cannot be objected entirely because some of the arguments like some having higher intelligence than the impaired and the kids plus the contributions animals give cannot be contested. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN REGARD TO ANIMALSThe arguments as furthered by Tom Regan and Peter Singer have come to a common stand where human beings are most important and no other rights should supersede them. The two are of the view that the non-humans are supposed to be guarded just as the humans enjoy rights that are factored even in the national constitutions. Some of the arguments that contradict these rights are that when an animal is abused, it is the owner of the animal who has his rights abused; for example, a person kicking another person's dog. In essence, the arguments are that the animals should also enjoy some rights; for example, killing animals unless for self-defense, or beating them without reason should not be applied. The two writers; Regan and Singer point that the era of abusing animals simply because they are non humans is long gone and what now exists is a kind of liberal view or position where humans nurture animals to their best. The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan. VanDeVeer (102-109) in The Case for Animal Rights that the animals can only be put as other beings and not just as animals and where their rights should be held as non humans. However, VanDeVeer (102-109) puts clarity that the rights of animals should just be; the rights of animals and thus cannot be equated as those of the rights of human beings. One of the crucial attribute of the arguments by Tom Regan is that all humans have a life that matters and so are the animals. The non-humans exist in the world because they have a life and this should be respected at all cost. The arguments by Tom are that there should be respect to the humans and the non-humans like animals; where, the respect should go as far as not harming or killing them. However, the major position is that there should be a threshold which the animals enjoy these rights. This means that, since there is no way they can be humans; and humans were created to rule over the animals, the rights enjoyed by these animals should not supersede those of the humans (Regan 26).In The case for animal rights, Tom Regan notes that the animals or what he calls the non-humans carry some moral rights and reject the idea or the notion that was furthered by a philosopher Immanuel Kant that respect should only be accorded to the rational beings and the reference here was only the human beings. According to Regan (56) Animals are to some extent irrational judging by their thinking capacity; and therefore, they should get little of the respect. However, Regan rejects this by arguing that if this is to be the case, other human beings such as the little babies whose rational capability is low should not be respected. This therefore puts the argument by Kant as not applicable because in essence infants and even the unborn should be given due respect by not killing, neglecting or aborting them. This then forms the basis of argument by Regan that all beings; whether human or non human should be accorded due respect and this is irrespective of the status or the class of these beings. The arguments by Regan may be contested on a number of fronts; but what is clear in these is that there should be no selective respect. Even though the rights of the animals can never be the same or equal to those of the human beings, there ought to be a threshold of the rights or at least there should be some maximum privileges given to the animals. For example, it would be illogical if a person just meets a dog and starts beating it up and that should only be the case if the dog threatens to harass the person. The underlying principle in this argument and which contradicts that of Peter Singer is that not all the animals should be put at the same level with human beings and what should happen is that the animals should just be given a threshold respect (Regan 95). The supporters of Regan point that he does not entirely advocate for the rights of animals the same way human beings are given the rights; and the bottom line of the arguments is that he does not hold that radical theory of environmental ethics. These are the kind of radical theories that point that the environment should be protected at all cost and no other argument should be given. His views are only on the moral principles and the insights that are held by the majority that there should be threshold rights that are given to the animal, and any right should never supersede that accorded to the human beings. In this as well, there are criticisms that are leveled against the philosophies of Tom Regan and one is on inherent culture or what is known as the subject of a life. In essence, these two are placed as most uncertain and the status of the two concerning the topic may not be determined. Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. The arguments by Singer are most liberal where, his advocacy are even in the movements for animal liberation. His book on Animal Liberation is capable of changing many people in the way many look at the animals. According to VanDeVeer (98-102), the author Peter Singer wants to put a strong case for the animals and try to consider them at times to be more important than some of the human beings. An example Peter Singer is giving is that of animals whose intelligence and signs surpass those of the impaired and the very little persons. Animal Liberation by Peter Singer is a book meant for animal lovers and those actually who cherish seeing animals around them and who hate to see an animal killed or harmed. The book argues that people should be 'civilized' and try to equate the life of the human beings to those of the animals. Some of the arguments equal those furthered by Tom Regan about the rights of the animals. His view is very radical as compared to that of Regan because; Regan at least pointed out of a maximum level or where the lives of the animals should not be put the same way as the rights of the people.The biggest question that is put when considering the arguments by Peter Singer is as to whether the animals are rational or they can think, suffer or talk. Human beings are known to have all of those qualities; that is, people can reason, they can suffer or the feel pain when wronged and can talk. It would be very illogical to try to equate the lives of the human beings with that of the animals as the two will never come close or be the same. Over the years, people have come to accept animals as companions; where some of them would feel great pain when these animals are wronged. Therefore, it is only arguable that it is the human beings who would feel the pain when the animals are wronged and not the animals. This brings the illogical concept of granting the animals full rights like those of the humans such that the movements and the agencies that protect the animals would punish a person for killing his or her animals or even try to overwork or harm the animal.This looks at the utilitarian idea that the greatest good for the greatest number is the only measure of good or ethical behavior (Singer 43). This then begs the question on what really constitute the ethical behavior or to what extent do persons hold ethical behavior. The ethical behavior should only look at what is good of the people or what should stand to benefit the people. Even though animals are very beneficial; for example, they constitute the larger tourism sector and some of them like the dogs protect our homes. What is illogical is when the dog is protected to the extent that when it tries to bite a human being, it is protected or its rights are protected by an agency. That is what is illogical and that is what people should be made to differentiate between irrational and being rational.Singer (48) looks at what he terms as speciesism, which is a discrimination that is based on belonging to a particular group of species. In essence, the argument holds the views of all beings whether human or non-human; and that is where most critics find place to comment. The argument they put is that he has put more emphasis on the rights of the animals than the humans have; where, if a person cannot harm an animal when he or she is wronged, then, the animal has more rights than the person. According to Singer (20), there are s people who as well show some retardation in terms of thinking and intelligence and some of the animals show some high levels of intelligence. Going by these statistics or information, the animals should therefore enjoy the same rights as the humans. Some of the animals have as well showed some signs that they can be more intelligent than the people; for example, a child's intelligence can never be equated to the intelligence of some big animals making the animal more important than the toddler. Position: Regan's Arguments Are True. By looking the two arguments, it is only arguable that Tom Regan has a point that can be proven even in the present day. Even though the views as expressed by Peter Singer cannot be overruled entirely, they override a number of issues and some of them being that were it not for the human beings, the animals may not exist and that the animals' rights should only come after those of the human beings. Some of the arguments by Singer is that some of the animals have intelligence that is more than that of some of the people; and by that, the animals should be granted equal if not more than the rights that are enjoyed by the human beings. That is too utilitarian and in the consideration of the ethical behavior concerning the environment, it can only be right if the animals would be protected only with a threshold. In essence, the animals may not live if the living of the human beings is terminated and so at all the rights of the animals should not be more than that of the human beings and neither should they be equal. The position is held about a number of fronts; and some of them being that the human beings are to some extent the sole breadwinners of these animals; that is, the animals cannot survive if people respond harshly to the environment and if some of the human activities are not carried. If the forests are not tendered well, some of these animals would not have places to hide or enjoy their rights. That also goes to the domestic animals whose livelihood depends on the human beings and can at no cost be equated to the lives of the human beings. However, there is an objection as proposed by Peter Singer that the animals do favor the human beings and if they are not tendered, they would varnish and so are the human beings. Animals are huge contributors to the eco-system and to some extent contribute to the growth of the nations especially in the sector of tourism. The point as put by Singer that some of the animals; for example, the Chimpanzees have a higher thinking capacity than human kids cannot be contested.CONCLUSION In the present world, the rights of the animals cannot be ignored, but what is proper is to grant these rights with some measures; that is, there should be a threshold to the amount of rights that the animals should be given by the human beings. In this paper, the argument is on the differences that occur between the arguments that are made by Peter Singer about total utilitarianism about the protection and respect given to the animals and the arguments that are made by Tom Regan about putting a measure of the advancement of these rights. The paper however points that it is wrong to give full rights to the animals in total disregard of the protection of the human beings and this should constitute the environmental ethics. Works CitedRegan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. California: University of California Press, 2004. PrintSinger, Peter. Animal Liberation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002. PrintVanDeVeer, Donald & Christine Pierce. The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book. Florence: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2003. Print