This text talks about animal rights. In modern life, people use animals for purposes such as
biomedical, fashion or even recreation. They think that animals shouldn't have rights because they don't
possess three parts of soul and they just care about eating. In addition, because animals don't think or
make decisions and they are not true members of a moral community. Therefore, humans believe that
they can kill animals on demand. On the other hand, from this text, the author asserts that animals also
need rights. Firstly, animals are alive so we need to respect life. Secondly, acting violently towards an
animal may make you act violently towards a human. Thus, we should treat animals humanely
because we are human. Moreover, animals aren't morally self legislative, so they can not possess
rights. Therefore, we can't abuse animals to serve the interests of humans.
Some people believe that animals are dangerous for humans and should be killed for biomedical
research. The important example in this text indicates that no animal can ever commit a crime. The
author said: “Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra? Does a baby zebra have a right not to be
eaten?”(74). This question is very profound and it make us think a lot. It means that animals don't have
thinking so they act instinctively and unconsciously. Therefore, animals can't be killed by their action
The author uses this example against that idea above and also to convince the reader.
There are two possible weaknesses significantly in the author's argument. In the first place, people
talk about animal rights but they still eat them. Based on Snopes.com: “KFC sells equivalent of 736
million chickens annually”. This means it would have to own some monstrously huge chicken farm in
order to supply itself with well over half billion chickens every year. How can we think about animal
rights when we eat them every day?. Secondly, the author believes that acting violently toward an
animal may enable you to act violently toward a human. These are two completely different issues
because someone who abuses animals might not abuse humans. According to Buzzle “In the year 2000,
it had been reported that over 7,600 greyhound puppies and 11, 400 old greyhound dogs were killed. In
2006, over 350, 000 baby seals were killed by clubbing during the annual Canadian seal hunt. This
number still has increased steadily up to now.” However, the amount of human violence has more and
more decreased from the Middle Ages because humans are aware of universalization of human rights
all over the world. However, this isn't true for animals. From this we can see that animal abuse hasn't
In my opinion, I agree with the author's view. Animal abuse is criminal and discriminative.
Animals need the right to live. In the first place, humans have three parts of souls and animals also
know feelings like humans. For example pets also feel happy when we play with them as well as hurt
when we violate them for human's purpose. In addition, some people believe that some animals are
dangerous to humans and need to be killed for biomedical research. It is an erroneous idea because all
animals are instinctual. For instance, we can't arrest a 4-year-old child because he steals someone's
money. They don't know any better.
Nowadays, there are many slaughter houses all over the world. There are regulations that a slaughter
house must reach but many do not reach these criteria. We have humane ways to kill the animal to
prepare it for eating, but most choose the least expensive way: throat slitting. They hang the animal
upside down, slit its throat, and let...