Animal Rights Essay: Ethical Debate on Animal Rights and Welfare

This essay delves into the multifaceted debate surrounding animal rights, examining the moral status of animals and the ethical considerations that govern their treatment. It explores the arguments put forth by various animal rights groups, highlighting their advocacy for freedom from suffering and opposition to the use of animals for food, clothing, and other goods. The essay contrasts differing viewpoints, such as those prevalent in countries like Australia and the US, where animals are often considered family members, with arguments that seek to establish boundaries between human and animal rights. It examines the role of legislation, such as the Animal Welfare Act, and the perspectives of animal rights activists, such as the Animal Liberation Front. The essay also addresses the concept of speciesism, comparing it to racism, and discusses the implications of medical experiments and cloning on animals, while referencing various sources to support its arguments.

unning ead M TR H : ANI AL RIGH
T e t e o an na e[ yp h c mp y m ]
ni al rig tA m h
ssaE y
tudent a eS N m
[ i t e dateP ck h ]

M TANI AL RIGH 1
Various humanitarians groups have argued in favor of animal rights on the global level.
In addition, they are continuously fighting for their right by operating on living being and must
be free from suffering. Some groups advocate that animals must not be used as source of food,
clothes and other goods. It also denounces any product which is made of animals (Coghlan,
2014). In countries such as Australia and US people considered animals as part of their family
but at the same time many groups argue that there must be some line which differentiate humans
right from animal right they cannot be same. In addition to this they argue that what right
animals must have because animals are used as source of income and transport from years and
these rights can act as obstacle to their work or can impact their income. In Australia under
Animal welfare Act animals which are being used in farming are given to base-level treatment
(Coleman, 2018). But according to animal right activist such as Animal Liberation front these
acts do not provide actual right to animals which they deserve.
Animals rights states that animals do have moral status and have rights just like other
human being but it seems less significant when compared to human which see them as their
property. According to animal welfare act animals and humans should be considered individual
which are living beings and deserve proper care and respect (Knutsson & Munthe, 2017). Human
must not considered them as their property because they have equal right to be happy in their life
just like humans. Every young children and handicapped people do not think them as source of
food. In some religion people believe that animals do not have souls which humans do and
therefore it is not wrong to do things with animals. According to this act, animals presence in this
world is not for humans they have their own identity and deserve same moral status as humans.
Therefore they must be treated with respect and must be offered equal importance to their living
rights. We all are living in a society in which law provide protection to basic right of humans
which only benefits human which are actually ruling the world (Puryear, 2016). In this context
people are not able to understand animal rights about equal treatment. Just for personal gain
human are followed inhuman way in which they are putting life threat to these animals which
have moral status and right to live. After all animals are living being which also have family and
it is unexpected to take someone family member just sake of personal benefit.
According to animal rights various activities are being conducted by human on animals in
the form of discrimination as a result of speciesism. It resembles like racism in which one person
discrimination other person on the base of their background but in speciesism discrimination is
done on the base of species through unfair modes. At the same time, some activists believe that
they neither support cruelty of animals nor their support cruelty of human but it does not means
that they are putting value of animal life above value of human being life (Kirchhoffer, 2012).
They believe that animals have right to live and killing them is wrong. In some cases,
exploitation related to animals is acceptable due to various reasons. One of their major
arguments is that human are most important species in this world and experiment must be done
in order to ensure survival of mankind.

M TANI AL RIGH 2
Animals are considered significant part of the environment and it is responsibility to
human to protect their rights. According to Animal liberation basic interest related to non-human
animals must be protected. This law is being taught in every country of the world but still people
are overlooking these laws for their personal interest. Even various states believe that it is
important to morally considered animal ethics which is connected with right to protection of
animals (Loadenthal, 2012). Even communities must provide their support in order to eliminate
chances of speciesism in the society. In addition, various cultures support the equal right of
animals to live and teach ethical value to humans related to animal rights. Beside this that every
country, religion support animal protection but still they are being ill-treated by humans. One of
the biggest issue related to animal right is medical experiment on animals it may be medicines,
medical approach and so on which puts their life in danger (Johnston & Johnston, 2017). In most
of the cases, experiment do not come out with favorable results which means unnecessary life of
one living being is been taken. Cloning experiment on animals has taken this unethical practice
to much higher end. Scientist has succeeded in cloning sheep which is not right from ethical
point of view. Sheep has to live for almost 12 years but it lived up to only six years. This
experiment lead to abnormal reproduction pattern in which sheep started give twins and triplets.
These experiments have taken walk ability of sheep by conducting Arthritis. It has been seen that
these types of experiment going on animals are hurting and life threat. One of the major issues is
that this trend is being followed by other fields such as cosmetic, clinical and so on. According to
recent report almost 20 million animals are killed in the name of test every year. No pain killers
are being offered to animals which are being experimented for medicines (Hu, Gao, & Zhu,
2017). From medical point of view these experiments are essential but from humanity point of
view it is insane to take someone life for just experiment. There are other sources of product
which can be used as replacement of animal products but still in order to make some product
unique human go beyond taking life of animals.

M TANI AL RIGH 3
References
Coghlan, S. (2014). Australia and live animal export: Wronging nonhuman animals. Journal of
Animal Ethics, 4(2), 45-60.
Coleman, G. (2018). Public animal welfare discussions and outlooks in Australia. Animal
Frontiers, 8(1), 14-19.
Hu, Y., Gao, G. F., & Zhu, B. (2017). The antibiotic resistome: gene flow in environments,
animals and human beings. Frontiers of medicine, 11(2), 161-168.
Johnston, G., & Johnston, M. S. (2017). ‘We fight for all living things’: countering
misconceptions about the radical animal liberation movement. Social Movement
Studies, 16(6), 735-751.
Kirchhoffer, D. G. (2012). Human dignity and the moral status of animals. Southern African
Public Law, 27(1), 119-135.
Knutsson, S., & Munthe, C. (2017). A virtue of precaution regarding the moral status of animals
with uncertain sentience. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30(2), 213-
224.
Loadenthal, M. (2012). Operation Splash Back!: Queering Animal Liberation Through the
Contributions of Neo-Insurrectionist Queers. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 10(3),
81-109.
Puryear, S. (2016). Sentience, rationality, and moral status: A further reply to Hsiao. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(4), 697-704.