Preview

Taking a Stand Against Peta

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2615 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Taking a Stand Against Peta
Term Paper

The Stand Against PETA “We love all animals, it’s just people we’re not too crazy about,” is a comment made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (Fegan 1). This outrageous comment insinuates PETA puts animals’ rights before the rights and needs of humans, which is not the way nature intended. The PETA organization has been around since 1980 affectively with their hyped-up, illogical stories of how we need to treat animals as equals and grant them rights that only we, as humans, should enjoy. These are assumptions and claims which are used to further their cause and are not founded in reality. Contradictory to PETA’s beliefs, animals should not have the same rights as humans, because that is the law of nature. According to Erasmus Darwin, who stated “Such is the condition of organic nature! whose first law might be expressed in the words 'Eat or be eaten!”. (Science Quotes by Erasmus Darwin) I do not intend to condemn animal rights activists, since people are entitled to their own opinions, but rather discuss why this way of life may be harmful to themselves and others. Animal rights debater Stephen R. L. Clark points out, “As humans, we are like the other animals and unlike them, tied to them and separate, in many ways,” (Golding). For example, humans are animals, our nature is an animal nature, our desires are, for the most part, animal desires, and our habit of hunting is like that of other animals. However, what sets us apart from other animals is the fact that we have legal rights (the right to vote) and moral rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The distinction must be made that animals obviously can't have the same rights as humans, because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals. For instance, an animal such as a cat doesn't have an interest in voting and, therefore, doesn't have the right to vote because that right would be as meaningless

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Determining the rights of non-human animals and deciding how to treat them may not be a choice available to our human society. As an advocate for the rights of animals, Tom Reganʻs three main goals are to abandon the use of animals in any scientific research, discontinue all commercial animal agriculture, and to completely terminate both commercial and sport animal hunting. To support these intentions, Regan argues that every human and non-human animal possesses inherent value, which makes them all more than a physical object or vessel. He then states that possessing inherent value allows every human and non-human to have rights of their own. To further his argument, Regan claims that the any human and non-human retaining rights requires equal treatment and respect from others. To conclude his argument, Regan states that due to these reasons, non-human animals cannot be treated as resources and must be treated by humans as equals. In this paper, I object to Reganʻs third premise, which states that non-human and human animals must be treated as equals and with respect, because our communication barrier with non-human animals restricts us from determining their notion of equal treatment or respect, and that attempting to do so could…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Animals and humans were created to coexist on this earth and therefore should receive fair treatment. Many cannot fathom the idea of initiating legal rights for animals. Some may even perceive it as absurd to dedicate and focus time on non-human animals. The main problem is that humans have advanced significantly, establishing a complex intellect that other species lack. Humans possess many capabilities that are distinct from those of others.…

    • 518 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Animals just like humans are a subject of life and therefore this brings about the issue of them having rights too. And having being a subject of life can be justified by them having as much high levels of complexity as humans and therefore much time is needed for one to study them and to get to understand a whole lot of things about them. This is to say getting to know what their preferences are and what they dislike. Animals are aware of their existence and are therefore conscious and make conscious decisions additional they do know what is happening to them for example they are aware if some type of danger is posed upon them and can therefore of think of what they can do and how they can protect themselves against such dangers. These non-humans do have plans of how to live their precious lives and therefore they live in such a way that they pose the best qualities of their living standards, also this is so…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Case for Animal Testing

    • 1113 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Animal rights activists continually formulate issues that pertain to animal experimentation with concerns including morality and equality. Activists argue that animals are treated inhumanely. They demand that animals receive the same amount of consideration and respect as humans as laid out in the principles of equality. They also argue that sentience is the only morally relevant characteristic that merits application in this subject. Mark Rowlands an animal rights activist highlights these points in his book “Animals Like Us”. He argues that contrary to dominant view, theories of equality and justice can legitimately be applied to animals and should be. He explains that to treat them with consideration and respect means simply that we give their interests the same weight that we would give the interests of humans.…

    • 1113 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many decades ago, animal rights was seen as nonexistent to humans. Animals were not considered as important creatures as humans, as their existence was solely recognized for human use only. Unfortunately, the actions of humans have led to immoral behavior and mistreatment towards animals, which have resulted to neglect, starvation, physical abuse, and participation of animal fights for money, just to name a few. With help of the formation of Animal Rights group such as PETA, created a form of social movement to help protect the rights of animals, as well as views and philosophy of Peter Singer who proclaims animals should be “liberated”.…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many people believe that animals have feelings and that they are able to feel what a human feels such love, suffering, stress even some people think that we share similar characteristics. in the article "A Change of Heart About Animals '' the author Jeremy Rifkin argument that animals are the same as human beings and that we should also treat them with love and respect. For some reasons, activists and some law schools believe in animals rights and they want to protect animals but if there were a bill of rights for animals some certain things would change for a reason some would not be benefit from this. Pass a bill of right it is not a good idea because it would change many things.…

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    We eat animals, they help us to create medicines and vaccines and we use them to create everyday goods that we intake or use. Should animals really have the same rights as us? Some people agree that they should have the same rights as us and some people disagree. Should they really be enforced?…

    • 1031 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Also, the animals have the rights to have live a life ether in society or in the laws. The other thing that people say that the animals don’t have the rights because they attack the humans. Although, it is true but on the other hand when animals attack they do it because the humans enter their territory’s, or when they want to look for…

    • 668 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Every single human being deserves legal rights, but animals may not need them at all. Animals are different from humans, they are either pets, wild animals or as food. Animals can still have human rights and choose for their own good, but it all depends on a few situations including food, pets, and abusive behaviour.…

    • 689 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Concern about the way humans treats non-human’s animals has spawned a powerful social and political movement. The conviction that humans and certain animals are similar in morally significant ways. The similarities oblige humans to extend to those animals serious. There some people who are supporters and some who are opponents. The debate over animal rights has a long history, George W. Bush signs the animal enterprise terrorism act. The nature of animals and appropriate relations between humans and animals have been solved today. The environmental community has not embraced animal rights. The two have often been at odds. A right approach focused exclusively on animals does not cover all the entities. The rights approach that would satisfy…

    • 532 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Animals should not have rights because they lack the ability to deliver their duty. According to the social contract theory, individuals were born into the state of nature, where they had to fight each other for survival. People formed government and made rules that limited their rights for the sake of the general stability and happiness.* They could no longer kill or rob others to get what they want because of the limitations, but it also meant that they did not have to worry of murder and theft as much as they used to. The arbitrary duties that people imposed upon themselves were beneficial for the humanity on the whole when all was said and done. People got out of the state of nature and started to cooperate with each other to conquer the nature. Even now, the social contract theory still remains salient. People in any society have been required to follow certain sets of rules to be protected by the law because rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. An English philosopher Roger Scruton pointed this out well in…

    • 1450 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Animal rights are the rights that are free from human services that can potentially or certainly hurt them. Animal rights supporters believe that animals have the same value to the world as humans do. On the PETA website, members “believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy—it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use” (PETA). Animals all fight for their lives just as humans do. Animal rights activists believe that we are all in this world together and that we are obligated to the same rights. Animal rights advocates usually tend to think differently than animal welfare activists.…

    • 1268 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    On the other hand, the people against animal rights argue that animals don’t think, not conscious. Also animals these people argue that animals were put on earth to serve human beings. This view comes originally from the Bible, but probably reflects a basic human attitude towards other species. Christian theologians developed this idea - St Augustine taught that "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their [animals'] life and their death are subject to our use." They also argue that animals don’t have souls as Christian theologians used to teach that only being with souls deserved ethical consideration. In addition, animals don’t behave morally and are not the members of the ‘moral community’. The arguments goes, why should human beings have obligations towards animals, if animals don't have obligations to other animals or to human beings?…

    • 281 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Everyone has a right, we human begins have a right. So why shouldn't animal have their rights? Human beings are no different from other animals, with no divine or elevated nature which makes us distinct. Human beings are ethically bound not to use other animals for their own selfish purpose. If human beings are no different from other animals, then like all other animals is it our nature to kill any other animal which serves the purposes of our survival and well-being, for that is the way of all nature. Therefore, aside from economic concerns such as making sure we don't kill so quickly that we destroy a species and deprive our descendants of prey, human animals can kill members of other animal species for their usefulness to us. I guess you can say that the disagreement would be what would people eat if they couldn't eat animals. Most of the food are from animals, but not many people can eat without animal in it. Some vegetarians do, but it is true that some vegiterens are depressed and saden a lot. And it is also not very healthy just eating vegetables; you need some meat in it. So, if I had to pick a side I guess I would go for it, because we animals have every right like people do, but we must be allowed to hunt some animals so people in our world can survive. But, I am for Animal rights because some peopel just hunt for fun, killing the animal for no reason, if they are going to do that, you can buy a video game, and shoot other animals (Hunting Deer) without creating any harm!…

    • 1029 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Who are you to say that animals do not have rights? They are creatures that feel pain, and are able to think to some extent.…

    • 1574 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays