Non-human creatures do not have rights. A right gets defined as a valid claim that must come from a moral agent, under laws that direct both the claimant and defendants (Cohen 91). Animals cannot be said to have rights since the idea of rights is inherently human, and its foundations relate to the concept of a moral world.
Humans must deal with animals in a fair way, similar to how a chair cannot be said to have a dream. Besides, saying that animals have rights confuses groupings as this places them in a moral group that is only relevant to human beings.
Again, animals do not have rights as God made them subordinate to human beings. This notion gets support from the Bible. In the time of creation, man became created last while other animals became created earlier. God then gave men control over all other creatures (Regan par. 34). We can interpret this to mean that human beings have rights over animals.
We can also argue that animals do not have rights, similar to human beings, because their moral stance is totally different. Contrary to the way animals feed on each other human beings behave differently. A lion may kill a zebra and no one will say that the lion does not have the right to kill the zebra, because this is how it obtains its food.
This demonstrates that rights represent the greatest moral result. Besides, animals such as lions and zebras are amoral, which means that morality does not apply to them, and their acts can never be termed as wrong. Thus, no rights exist in the world of animals.
While it is vital for researchers to practice humanity when handling animals, we cannot say that human beings violate their rights, since the idea of rights is not relevant to their situations. For instance, Nazi doctors used the Jews as subjects to advance their research in medicine some years ago. It is clear that this was not a moral approach as the Jews had rights that required respect.
Several people think that animals have rights similar to those of the Jews, which involve protection against participation in medical research. While these people consider animals to have rights, they fail to remember that human beings also have rights that surpass those of animals.
For instance, the United States reported over 50,000 polio related cases and almost 3, 000 polio related deaths in 1952 (Cohen 92). People became frightened due to this ailment, and the government called for polio vaccination among all citizens two years later. Presently, cases of polio are rare.
What we need to remember here is that the polio vaccine could only be established through experimentation with animals. Malaria is also a killer disease that most researchers think that should have a vaccine. While several vaccines have undergone investigation, none of them has emerged successful after trial with animals. This raises the ethical question on whether we need to protect children or animals.
Medical experiments may have adverse effects when carried out using human beings, considering that they are only trials. Using children to test vaccine is awkward and results in death.
Thus, we use rats and monkeys as this is the only available option. Vaccines must undergo tests, and such tests could be extremely dangerous when carried out using human beings as subjects. Thus, we do not have any other way of testing these vaccines apart from using animals.
Defenders of human rights insist that animals have rights just like human children. These defenders term the act of medical scientists as morally wrong. However, they fail to recognize that unless animals get killed, medical scientists cannot advance most significant areas in medicine (Frey 97).
Also, defenders of animal rights fail to recognize that animals do not have moral duties, similar to human beings. While we may consider some acts of human beings as crimes, this does not apply to animals. This is because criminal acts become determined by the moral state of mind of the offender.
Similar to how an insane person cannot be said to have committed a crime, cows and rats cannot be said to commit crimes. This is because all these do not recognize moral duties that guide behaviors or consequences that follow certain actions.
In other words, animals cannot be incriminated as they do not have a moral state of mind that could be violated by other humans. Besides, animals do not have free will, which all moral agents must have. This becomes explained by the fact that they do not have control over their pathological impulses, which makes them lack control over their actions.
Hence, animals are not moral agents, and human beings do not have direct duties towards animals because they can only have such duties towards moral agents. This supports the thesis of this study that non-human creatures do not have rights.
Works Cited
Cohen, Carl. Do Animals Have Rights? Ethics and Behaviour. 7.2 (1997): 91-102. Web.
Frey, Reagan. Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals. Journal of Medical Ethics. 7.2 (1981): 95102. Web.
Since the research works held every year in the field of biology and biodiversity show that the decline in the number of rare species is constantly growing, and that animals rights are being violated by a number of physical persons and legal entities, the obvious conclusion that can be drawn is that there must be something done about the situation. In spite of the fact that animals right have been talked much about, there is still very little done to protect the wildlife from the people and their inventions that pose a terrible threat to the state of the wildlife.
Humanists have come up with the idea of animal rights rather recently, and the progress that the idea has brought, rapidly growing popular with the people all over the world, is truly indescribable.
People have grown concerned with the issues that they have never thought of, and the humanism that the theory of animals having their own right is shot through is a clear evidence of the fact that the mankind has achieved another level of development. The notion of mankind and humanity are bound to be intertwined someday, and this is quite cheerful news.
In spite of the fact that the progress cannot but bring joy and relief, there are certain questions rising as the new ideas start developing.
However, not all people think that animals are supposed to have any rights at all. For example, Cohen (2008) assumes that according to their natural state, animals cannot have any rights, in contrast to people. He explains it by the fact that animals are no human beings, while rights are the attribute of people only, according to the law and logics.
Human beings are self-legislative, morally autonomous. Animals (that is, nonhuman animals, the ordinary sense of that word) lack this capacity for free moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none. (p. 709)
This is the core of the argument about the alleged rights of animals. Indeed, the existing laws do not presume that animals should have the same rights as people do. From this point of view, it must be ridiculous to think that animals can understand the notion of rights, and accept that they have certain rights.
Since humans are the only beings that can be taken as sane and articulate, only humans can have rights and freedoms. Meanwhile, the wildlife does not have the privilege of rights. It is not that animals are thought to be of less importance than the progressive mankind or the other elements of the Earth, but the whole idea is that wildlife cannot fit the idea of rights. It is high above the moral concepts – the latter are not applicable to the nature as it is at all.
Cohen (2008) explains that his idea is not that, because of people’s superiority, a man can do to animals whatever he or she wants to – on the other hand, he tends to think that people should take care of animals, since the latter are more vulnerable. Yet Cohen insists that animals cannot possess rights owing to their belonging to the sphere where no morals or laws can exist.
Rights entail obligations, but many of the things one ought to do are in no way tied to another’s entitlement. Rights and obligations are not reciprocals of one another, and it is a serious mistake to suppose that they are. (p. 708)
In other words, nature is the environment different from the human civilization, and animals cannot possess rights in the meaning that people are used to out to this concept. Freedoms, as well as obligations, are the substance that does not fit into the frame of the wild life.
With all the regard to the abovementioned point of view, it is necessary to mark that it embraces the concept of rights only from the legal point of view. This is only the constitution and the Declaration of Rights and Freedoms that such judgment is based on. In other words, since the nature itself id the notion that stands out of the structure of the human world, the rights of animals are supposed to touch the sphere that does not have the direct correspondence to the acting laws and justice.
As Regan puts it, the treatment of animals in the modern society is not to be improved, it is to be changed completely, for its ideas are interconnected – once something has been changed, the whole system is brought down.
Regan (2008) shows a complete revision of the concept of animals rights as the possible way out of the conflict situation: “What’s wrong — fundamentally wrong — with the way animals are treated isn’t the details that vary from case to case. It’s the whole system.” (p. 696)
This wrongness is the fact that drives people to the abuse of animal rights.
However much one might know about the right treatment of animals, it will be impossible to solve the misconception of the animals rights with help of the standards that we are used to apply to people.
There must be something deeply wrong about the way people perceive the idea of respecting animals and their rights. The basic question is whether it is possible to respect the rights of chicken having it for a dinner. This is what vegetarians are conducting debates about.
The perfect explanation that Regan (2008) provides for the drawbacks of the existing system of animal rights is the following:
As for animals, since they cannot understand contracts, they obviously cannot sign; and since they cannot sign, they have no rights. Like children, however, some animals are the objects of the sentimental interest of others. (p. 699)
This is as far as the law system goes with providing animals with their right to live and to enjoy their life, the right not to be treated brutally and killed. The law makes their rights equal to naught, since they can be posed neither like physical persons, nor like a legal entity, of course. Like lawyers say, “dura lex sed lex suus” – “the law is hard, but it is the law.”
Still it is obvious that animals must not be mistreated. However different they might be from people, it is the principle of humanity that must guide people in their relation towards the living creatures.
It goes without saying that people can make use of the plenty that the Earth provides us with. Since people cannot handle without eating meat, the question of vegetarianism remains open, and the “meat-eaters” can stay with their consciousness unstained. But as far as it goes about mistreating the living beings, making them suffer just because a man is a superior creature to those who are in pain because of people, such things have to stop.
The cruelties that people can do make one’s hair rise in terror. As Regan (2008) said, animals suffer greatly because of people and their actions, which are wilder than the nature itself, completely deprived of logic of the wild world where killing is for food, not for pleasure.
But what is wrong isn’t the pain, isn’t the suffering, isn’t the deprivation. These compound what’s wrong. Sometimes – often – they make it much, much worse. (p. 697)
As a matter of fact, they do. These compounds shape into such terrible results that one cannot help thinking of whether a man is any difference from a beast. In fact, even animals do not treat each other with the cruelty of a man.
Regarding the situation, one must say that it has to be dealt with. People have to acknowledge that animals are living beings just like people are, and their rights are not a vague notion but the basis for the humanity of people all over the world. Animals have to get the rights that they have been deprived of for so long, and the aim of giving them those rights must be the prior goal of humanists and animal protection organizations.
Reference
Cohen, C. (2008). The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.
The Norton Reader: An Anthology of Nonfiction. 12th Ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Regan, T. (2008). The Case for Animal Rights. The Norton Reader: An Anthology of Nonfiction, 12th Ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Do animals have rights? What is the meaning of animal rights? How can human beings uphold animal rights in the same way that they uphold human rights? These are just some of the questions arising from the controversy regarding animal rights.
It must be pointed out that humans are dependent on animals for their survival. It is therefore important that human beings value animals and respect their rights. Animals must be valued as an important part of human existence. Therefore, humans must protect the rights of animals to live and sustain their kind. Humans must not hunt, experiment and consume animals.
It must be made clear that humans cannot disregard the value of animals even if animals do not posses the same capabilities as a talking and intelligent person. Animals may not have the capability to create societies and solve complex problems, but just the same, they have value. According to one commentary:
Any person of common sense will agree that these animals bring the mystery of consciousness to the world. These animals, that is, not only are in the world, they are aware of it – and also of their inner world. They see, hear, touch and feel; but they also desire, believe remember and anticipate (Regan 622).
Animals play a crucial role in the survival of the human species. There is a profound sense of happiness when man interacts with animals. Those who have pets can attest to what Tom Regan said regarding the impact of animals on human lives. They may not have the ability to speak but they see, hear, touch, feel and most importantly they remember (Regan 622).
Their instincts simply prove that they act on the basis of pure intentions and not from premeditation. It is therefore immoral to hunt them down, consume their flesh and subject them to torture as in the manner employed in animal testing facilities.
Consider for instance the impact of pets. They bring great joy to their owners. Consider the impact of birds to the natural environment. Birds maintain ecological balance because they are instrumental in the propagation of fruit-bearing trees.
Birds eat the fruits and through their excrement, the seeds are scattered far and wide. This world will become an ugly place to live in without butterflies, zebras in the wild, and other exotic animals that lend color and life to virgin forests and national parks.
Animal Rights
Before going any further it is important to clarify the meaning of animal rights and the implications if the whole world agrees with this idea. An unbiased look at animal rights means that animals must be accorded the same rights as people. In other words animals must be treated as if they are human beings. Thus, the following interpretation of the concept of animal rights cannot be considered as an exaggeration:
It means no hunting, fishing, or trapping, No livestock farming or ranching. No use of animals in science or education; no animal bone marrow to treat blood disorders, or animal blood to treat Rh factor types. No beef, pork, lamb, chicken, fish, eggs, or even honey. No leather shoes, fur collars, wool sweaters, down jackets or comforters or even silk (Marquardt & Levine 4).
Animal rights advocates will have a hard time explaining the merits of animal rights if they use a selective approach when it comes to the things that can and cannot be accomplished using animal parts and animal products. If animals are treated like human beings then they have to be free.
No one must be allowed to curtail their freedom and exploit any part of their bodies without consent. In other words the laws of the land must protect the welfare of animals.
A More Practical Approach
As a consequence it would be illegal to hunt and trap animals. It would be illegal to shear sheep and harvest their hairs to produce warm clothes. At the same time there are millions of people who will become undernourished because of the lack of access to nutritious food. It must be made clear that beyond the borders of industrialized countries, most of the farmers in poor nations are dependent on beasts of burden.
They needed animals to help them do the work of the farm. There are places like the North Pole, Alaska and other places that are under extreme weather conditions. In these regions it is more practical to hunt animals for food rather than grow vegetables and fruit trees in a hostile environment.
If the principles of animal rights are followed to the letter, then, it is illegal and immoral to find cures using animals as research subjects. It has to be pointed out that kidney transplant was perfected through animal testing so that in the 21st century “these transplants have a success rate of 95 percent” (Owen 56).
Without the existence of animal testing centers, kidney transplants would have only existed in the imaginations of physicians because there is no way to determine if the procedure can be carried out safely.
Animal rights must be observed but at the same time it has to be made clear that humans are more important than animals. There is no use arguing that animals are valuable if priorities are misguided. Human beings must come first before animals. The moment that this premise is accepted then it is easier to consider a compromise between hardliners that insist on a total vegetarian diet and zero tolerance on farming animal products.
But the consequences can be terrible if a legalistic approach is used to impose strict observance on animal rights. Many people will suffer from hunger and malnutrition. There are many tribes that rely on animal meat for their nutrient requirements because they do not have the means to maintain a vegetarian diet.
There is also the need to consider the desire of the majority because the failure to do so will result in the tyranny of the few. Consider for instance the fact that the “majority of people want to have meat and other animal products easily available, providing a wide variety of choices, and want them to be inexpensive” (Sherry 39).
There is the need to modify the hard-line stance of animal rights activists. A practical approach is to develop a more humane way of treating animals. Humans must not torture animals and they must develop a quick way to end their lives if there is a need to harvest their meat and hide. There must be a total ban on hunting if it is done for vanity purposes only.
Conclusion
Human beings must respect animal rights. But a hard line stance calling for the strict observance of animal rights has been found to be impractical. In addition, it is wrong to enforce a particular set of beliefs that can negatively affect the health and livelihood of the majority.
A more practical approach is to develop a more humane way of treating animals. Animals must not be made to suffer and humans must learn to take only what they need.
Works Cited
Marquardt, Kathleen and Herbert Levine. AnimalScam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights. Washington, D.C.: Regenery Gateway, Inc., 1993. Print.
Owen, Marna. Animal Rights: Noble Cause or Needless Effort? MN: Lerner Publishing Group, 2010. Print.
Regan, Tom. “Religion and Animal Rights.” Reading Literature and Writing Argument. Ed. Missy James and Alan Merickel. New York: Pearson Education, 2010. 619-629. Print.
Introduction: On the Relationships between People and Nature
There is no need to mention the sad fact that the relationships between people and nature, including most of its elements, have been rather complicated, especially since the advent of technological progress and the consequent pollution issues.
According to the humanist principles, animals must be granted the right to live, as well as the right to be treated in a humane way.
However, in the late XX and early XXI century, with the progress of the humanist ideas peaking as they never have before, one of the aspects of the nature-vs.-nurture conflict has become especially debatable.
Since in the age of democracy, it has become obvious that every single person has his/her own rights and freedoms, it has been suggested that the concept of rights must be applicable not only to people, but also to every single living being, i.e., the animal world as well. Therefore, the given idea entails the prohibition of killing animals for the sake of fur, leather or food production (Fudge 75).
Although modern technologies allow for creating artificial leather and fur, the problem of substituting meat remains open. Since most people are not ready to become vegetarian, giving animals an indefeasible right to live might be a hasty decision.
From One Extreme to Another: From Beyond the Barricades
It is worth admitting that both sides of the argument, i.e., the people who believe that animals should be given their indefeasible rights, as well as the people who do not consider it possible to provide animals with rights.
To start with, the opinion of the proponents of animal rights crusade should be considered.
The reasons behind the actions of fighters for animal rights are quite simple.
According to what the activists like PETA say, animals are living beings; they can feel pain, switch moods, display certain social behavior, and, therefore, must be provided with legal rights (Fox 203). Simple enough the given argument is still very convincing.
The opponents of the fighters for animal rights often use the arguments of the latter to prove the point. According to what Cohen and Regan say, “for the advocates of animal rights in the strict sense, the utilitarian arguments of the ‘liberation’ camp are not only insecure but dangerous.
In some cases, at last, the calculations of good and bad consequences of animal use is virtually certain to yield a result not favorable to the animals. But in such cases the liberationist defense of animals must collapse, resting as it does on the calculations of the worth of outcomes” (Cohen and Regan 8).
It would be wrong, however, to consider that the arguments of those who are against providing animals with rights are restricted to nitpicking on the ideas of the animal rights proponents.
As a rule, the key argument of the people who believe that animals do not need the human concept of rights is that in the animal kingdom, there is no concept of morality.
Since rights arise in the sphere of the latter (Cohen and Regan 8), it can be considered that the concept of rights is inapplicable to any element of the animal kingdom, where morality as a notion does not exist and which is ruled by the key principle that only the strong survive (Jasper 170).
Another argument that the fighters for treating animals like animals provide to the organizations like PETA is that animals are the only option for testing new medicine or conducting any other scientific experiments.
Indeed, given the fact that there is no alternative to testing newly developed medicine on animals, providing animals with such rights as the right to live will ensue a number of murder cases if some of the experiments prove lethal.
As a result, the newly created medicine will become less efficient and more dangerous to use, with a number of unpredictable side effects. As Cohen and Regan explain,
The animal rights movement… as I conceive it, is committed to a number of goals, including:
the total abolition of the uses of animals in science;
The total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture;
The total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping…
You don’t change unjust institutions by tidying them up. (Cohen and Regan 9)
Finally, admitting animals to have legal rights will presuppose that animals will be “considered to have legal standing” (Fox 204), which, given the gap between the development of animals and people, is simply absurd.
Therefore, the key reasoning provided by the opponents of the animal rights crusaders is that a) the concept of morals is inapplicable to animal world and 2) there is little to no alternative for the use of animals in medicine testing.
My Opinion: Why Sustainable Approach Deserves to Be Applied
Personally, I believe that the policy towards animals treatment must be less radical. To be more exact, it must be sustainable. To start with, it is crucial that animals should not be tortured in slaughterhouses and that the process of slaughter should be as quick and painless as possible.
In addition, the laws concerning the maltreatment of animals must be revisited so that the people whose pets are being mistreated should be detected and that their pets should be taken to the animal shelter where they will be taken a proper care of.
As for marketable fish, game birds, etc., there is no need to stress that people need these products to remain healthy. While protein can be obtained from the sources other than game bird and cattle, phosphorus contained in fish is not easy to replace with the phosphorus from any other sources.
That being said, killing animals for the sake of providing people with the necessary minerals and vitamins is inevitable, and no alternative for the given process has been found to this day (Hester and Harrison).
Speaking of animals as resources various materials, such as fur, wool, leather, etc., one must mention that with the technological developments of the XXI century, providing the substitute for fur sand leather is relatively easy, which means that animals should not be used as the sources for various materials anymore.
Once adopting the sustainable approach towards wild animals and providing the rules for treating domestic animals and pets in an appropriate way, setting the bar for the concept of “mistreatment,” one will be able to provide animals with their rights without infringing the rights of people.
The Reasons for Holding the Universal Appeal: Why Giving Animals Rights Is not the Most Reasonable Idea
The key idea that makes me choose the reasonable (i.e., sustainable) treatment of animals and a humanistic approach towards them instead of providing animals with the rights that they deserve as much as people do is the fact that the need for animals to have rights comes from people’s concept of the universe.
To be more exact, the problem is that these are not animals who demand their rights – these are people who demand rights for animals; the latter are not aware of the concept of rights at all.
Therefore, the given situation can be regarded as an attempt to approach the principles of the animal world with the help of human morals, which is intrinsically wrong, seeing how animals do not have the concept of morals. As Fudge put it,
Think for a moment about who asserts animals’ rights. Is it a laboratory rabbit, veal calf, or hunted fox? Not at all. Animal rights is exclusively asserted by society and it is intended to restrain human practices.
It says that animals are morally the same as humans, and then asks humans to treat them as if they were human; it is up to us to struggle for animal rights because animals cannot fend for themselves. (Fudge 50)
Therefore, it is impossible to approach the idea of animal rights from people’s perspective. Truly, in the light of the fact that people are equipped much better than animals, they should be more responsible about the means that they choose to build relationships with nature.
However, there is a great difference between acknowledging the weakness of animals and, thus, being more responsible towards the wildlife and claiming that people have no rights to use animals for medicine testing, producing food, etc.
Therefore, it is necessary not to be cruel towards animals, yet, unless an alternative for meat and medicine testing is provided, claiming that animals must not be killed will come at a price of many people’s lives.
The Possible Objections: What Both Camps Have to Say
It must be admitted that both camps will argue against the solution that I have provided. The fighters for animal rights will point at the fact that my solution presuppose treating animals as a resource instead of considering them beings with rights.
Although the provided solution does allow to avoid cruelty in treating animals, it still fails to recognize their rights for the reasons mentioned above.
The supporters of the idea that animals cannot have rights will consider the given solution as restrictive in that it does not allow to satisfy the tastes of people who would like to cater not only on tuna, but also on more exotic types of fish or animals and to enjoy natural fur.
Therefore, their key argument may be that the provided solution infringes people’s rights, i.e., cares about animals better than it cares about people.
In Response to the Counterarguments: Reasonability and Adequacy
The latter argument can be argued by mentioning the fact that, though renewable, a number of natural resources, such as various species of animals, bird and fish, are endangered due to overconsumption.
Therefore, it is in the interests of gourmets to abstain from eating exotic animals for a couple of years until certain species replenish their population. Hence, the provided solution takes both the interests of people and animals into account.
As for the former argument, biologically, the human race is superior to any other species on the Earth, which means that people as superior beings must take care of animals instead of taking the campaign of animal rights to its absurd point.
In addition, the issue concerning medicine testing, unfortunately enough, still remains open, which means that while other solutions are being sought for, animals will be used for experiments.
Works Cited
Cohen, Carl and Tom Regan. The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Print.
Fox, Michael Allen. The Case for Animal experimentation: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986. Print.
Hester, Ronald Ernest and Roy M. Harrison. Alternatives to animal Testing. Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2006. Print.
Jasper, James. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography and Creativity in Social Movements. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997. Print.
The question as to whether animals possess moral rights has triggered a fierce debate ever since the Darwinian ages. Critics such as Tom Regan have criticized the use of animals in human research and experiments on grounds that it violates the moral rights of animals.
However, such arguments have been challenged by another side of moral philosophy that argues that non-human animals lack moral worth, and therefore, cannot demand any moral obligation towards them. These arguments can only be addressed to a satisfactory level by analyzing the aspects of humans that elevates humanity to a higher moral status that supersedes that of other animals.
Carl Cohen argues that animals cannot be given the same moral considerations because they lack independent moral will, and therefore, they cannot claim moral rights. Cohen, however, disputes that, animals’ lack of rights cannot be used by humans to alleviate themselves some obligation to animals because obligation is not necessarily based on a right.
To say that an animal should be given moral consideration signifies that those who recognize moral claims have a duty to reciprocate the same to other beings that share the same qualities. The main question that arises out of this argument is that, can animals be wronged in any way that can be said to be morally relevant? It is widely believed that only humans possess emotions and are, therefore, the only beings that can make claims on any moral grounds.
Those such as Cohen who argue against animal rights, base their arguments largely on the perceived none sentient nature of non-human animals. Cohen concludes that because animals do not have the ability to comprehend the rules of moral duty and cannot exercise claims against others, they do not have any moral rights.
Accepting the claims presented by Cohen would mean a justification for humanity to subject animals to acts that cause suffering, discomfort, pain, and even death. Opposing these views is Tom Regan who presents a radical egalitarian argument for animal rights.
He argues that animals that are exploited by humans for various uses have a life of their own that plays some importance to them other than just being resources for human beings. They have a sense of their environment and they have individual, biological, and social needs, which when violated, subject them to pain or deprive them of pleasure. Regan holds the view that it is fundamentally wrong for humans to use animals for food, experiments, research, and in any other way that treats animals as resources.
Regan’s views are quite radical, while Cohen’s argument that moral rights can only be claimed by those who recognize them and can understand the related rules is inadequate. This means that even those humans who are unable to comprehend moral contracts, for example, mentally unstable persons, cannot claim moral rights, and other humans similarly do not have a moral duty towards them.
Cohen fails to address this challenge. It is also unfounded to argue that animals do not feel pain or pleasure. Because humans do not understand how some animals express their emotions is not qualified to justify the argument that such animals lack emotions.
Humans are very different in a variety of ways from other animals, as well as within themselves as a species. However, these differences cannot be used as a philosophical defense to deny moral consideration to non-human animals. Humans have a duty to treat other animals with respect and dignity because duties are not necessarily based on moral right.
The issue of animal rights within the realm of ethical studies has been of great significance during the last several decades. The application of philosophical theories and principles to the issue of animals’ rights is becoming increasingly important in the modern world, where the interests of all species are being considered as ethically relevant. The article by Richard Pérez-Peña “Elephants to Retire From Ringling Brothers Stage” was published in The New York Times and delivers the news story about the Ringling Brothers Circus freeing the elephants.
Such a momentous decision is a result of long-lasting disputes and now has triggered more discussions in the circles of animal rights organizations. The problem of the way different animals are treated in circuses might be applied with such concepts and theories as speciesism, anthropocentrism, anthropomorphism, and equal consideration of interests.
The dispute between the circus owners and animal rights activists has been going on for many decades. The core of their disagreement is in the way the animals are treated in the circuses for training purposes. The transparency, which is a common thing in the modern world driven by easy access to information, enables people to see how the animals are treated in circuses. On the one hand, animal rights activists state that cruelty and brutality are the critical elements in elephant training.
On the other hand, the circus owners and animal trainers argue that the use of sticks and other equipment is justified by the importance of discipline and human safety (Pérez-Peña). Besides the cruel treatment of animals, other species are exposed to physical control, stress from continuous traveling, and separation from their families when they are babies. All these issues are used by different animal protection organizations to fight for the rights of the species trapped in the entertainment business.
According to the theory of speciesism, different animals are treated unequally with privileges given to certain species. As the article by Pérez-Peña demonstrates, this theory has been an influential part of the conflict between the circus owners and animal rights protectors. Indeed, many countries have enacted special legal documents forbidding the use of wild animals for entertainment, including holding them in a circus environment.
However, the elephants are vastly used in American circuses because they are differentiated from other species. As it is discussed in the article, Asian elephants are not regarded as “fully wild, because people have put them to work for millenniums” (Pérez-Peña par. 11). It is unethical to apply such blurred terms as “not fully wild” to separate one species from the others. Speciesism implies inherent inequality among animals and exposes some of them to a hostile living environment and physical suffering under the cruel treatment in circuses.
The overall basis of circus owners’ argument deals with anthropocentrism that places a human at the center of everything. From this point of view, animals are treated as a supplement to entertaining human life and are not attributed to any rights. Since people have more access to information about the real conditions of animals’ being in the circus facilities, how they travel, and how they suffer when trained, the number of strikes increases.
The increased public’s opposition to circuses’ usage of animals, including elephants, complicates the work of the circuses, such as Ringling Brothers. Consequently, the anthropocentric approach prevails even in the decision-making process when the company decided to retire its elephants, calling it “purely a business decision” (Pérez-Peña par. 6). Thus, even in the circumstances of the rising importance of animal rights, business owners adhere to the principles of anthropocentrism.
However, the rise of research on animals’ experiences has provided a scope of ideas contributing to the protection of animal rights. The theory of anthropomorphism is at the center of such investigation since the experiences animals have are perceived from the point of view of their similarities and differences of those humans have. In other words, animals are treated via the reflection of human feelings and experiences, thus entitled to be applied with the same ethical considerations as humans. From this perspective, the elephants that are kept in hostile conditions in circuses are exposed to stress, suffering, emotional pain, physical injuries, and lack of freedom just as humans would be.
At the same time, it is imperative to provide equal rights for all animals. It is impossible to do under the guidance of speciesism, but equal consideration of interests provides such an opportunity. It is one of the philosophical, theoretical bases that might help in further resolving of disputes considering animal rights. In their attempts to protect animals, people need to prioritize the interests animals have without reasoning. However, the example of elephants’ retirement for the Ringling Brothers stage shows that it takes a lot of precise consideration, reasoning, and disputes to make a change in the ethical treatment of animals.
In conclusion, the news article about the retirement of animals from a circus implies a considerable shift in the perception of animal rights by the modern entertainment business. However, at the same time, it demonstrates the ambiguity in the application of basic philosophical concepts to the resolution of the problem. While animals are being treated from the perspective of anthropocentrism, anthropomorphism, and speciesism, equal consideration of interests fails to apply. It is vital to prioritize animals’ interests to ensure the preservation of their ethical rights.
For a long time, many human societies have viewed animals as sources of food, labor, and clothing. This view (partly) stems from religious influences, which define people’s perceptions of animal rights. For example, Christian teachings show that God gave man the power to control all animals (on land and in the sea). Therefore, many Christian societies know that human beings are superior to animals.
Philosophers, such as Aristotle, also supported the above-mentioned religious arguments by ranking animals in the lowest cadre of living things (Taylor 36). Although the Greek philosopher explored the differences and similarities between both species, he said animals were a “lower-stature” species (compared to human beings) because they could not reason, think, or have beliefs, as people do (Taylor 36). These ancient perceptions of animals largely explain the background of animal rights debates. They also explain how different societies treat animals today.
Relative to how people treat animals, Singera (13) says, in 2001, North American farmers raised and killed about 17 billion land animals for human consumption. Scientists in America and Europe killed another 100 million animals for experimental purposes (Singera 13). People killed about 30 million more land animals for their fur (Singera 13).
Most of these animals lived and died in morally repugnant circumstances. Such “inhuman” treatments continue unabated because many societies believe animals do not have any rights. This paper seeks to change this narrative by focusing on pets and arguing for their rights. Although it explores critics’ arguments too, it shows that, like human beings, pets are emotional creatures and not property items, as many people would like to believe. Therefore, it is immoral to mistreat them.
Arguments for Animal Rights
Pets can feel Emotion and Pain as People do
Singera (1) is widely considered as the greatest pioneer of animal rights. He said human beings do not have a special status above other animals. For him, the degree that both species experience when feeling pleasure or pain is the only difference between animals and human beings. Since both groups have a threshold of pain, Singera (1) does not understand why people do not protect animals the same way they protect their offspring. Here, Singera (1) strives to eliminate the differences between animals and human beings to advance animal rights.
Linker (9) supports this view by saying, “Once the dividing line between humans and animals disappears, it is hard to uphold any fundamental ethical distinction between them.” Steve Wise, an American Law Professor (cited in Linker 9), similarly advances the above argument by using a different justification for supporting animal rights. Instead of using shared pain and pleasure to show the similarities between people and animals, he strives to elevate animals to human status. For example, he criticizes people who view animals as property because he believes animals could reason as human beings do.
For example, he says Chimpanzees have this ability (Linker 9). He uses this argument to say their reasoning ability makes them more valuable than other types of property. Therefore, he believes animals share the same dignity as people do. Referring to Wise’s argument, Linker (12) says, “if he can demonstrate that certain higher animals possess the same intrinsic dignity that human beings do, the law within liberal democracies will be obliged to recognize that such animals are persons possessing at least some fundamental, inviolable rights.”
The above arguments show no significant differences between people and animals. In terms of shared emotion and pain, Singerb (11) says scientists infer almost all human physiological pain manifestations on other species. He particularly draws our attention to animals that are close to us – mammals and birds. He says, “Their behavioral signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping, or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on” (Singerb 11).
Indeed, like how human beings behave (when they feel pain) animals show the same physiological symptoms of pain, such as dilated pupils, increased pulse rates, and increased blood pressure. To explain this commonality, Grandin (141) says both species have similar nervous systems. In line with this argument, Singerb (11) emphasizes that the nervous systems of animals evolved the same way the nervous systems of human beings did. Their ability to feel pain is part of their survival tactics because they use it to avoid injury and death.
Grandin (141) says animals also experience fear, the same way human beings do. Certainly, although fear is subjective, it causes significant stress to animals. This is why advocates of animal rights say they need environmental enrichments to prevent them from developing irregular developmental patterns, such as EEG patterns (Grandin 141). Relative to this argument, Grandin (141) says people’s nervous systems do not differ with that of higher animals. For example, scientific evidence shows that the nervous systems of chimpanzees, dogs, and cows are like that of human beings (Grandin 141).
The genome project also supports the same finding by showing that people’s gene make-up is like a mouse’s gene makeup (Grandin 141). Relative to this fact, Grandin (141) says mammals have more than 30% of their genes designed to serve nervous system functions. These similarities explain why some animals adopt human-like behaviors, such as self-medication. For example, studies have shown that rats self-medicate when they suffer from arthritis (Grandin 141). Besides these behavioral similarities, animals are as social as human beings are (Grandin 142).
Although some people may not support these facts, scientific evidence suggests that most animals perceive pain the same way human beings do. Governments have used this evidence to protect animal rights in many parts of the world. For example, three separate government committees (on animal welfare), in the UK, affirm that most animals feel pain (Singerb 13). However, Grandin (140) says we need more research to explain the extent that these animals experience the pain.
Animals are not Property
Taylor (36) says until the early 1900s, many people saw animals as worthless creatures. In fact, many societies could not accord a “property status” to them because of spite (Taylor 36). Therefore, the law permitted people to steal and kill animals without any consequences. The abolition approach has strived to change people’s perception of animals (as property).
It says that focusing on animal welfare distracts people from eliminating property rights on animal ownership (Grandin 140). Instead, the theory proposes a moral and legal paradigm shift, which strives to differentiate animals from other types of property (Grandin 140). To do so, the abolitionist approach encourages people to perceive animals as sentient creatures (having subjective awareness).
Proponents of this view say they do not need human-like rationalities to receive better treatment from people (Grandin 140). Therefore, since they are creatures that experience pain, they should belong to the moral community. This view differs with the animal rights view, which (only) supports the better treatment of human-like animals, such as apes, because their DNA make-up is more like human beings than other animals. As such, they say all animals are the same (Grandin 140). They also oppose treating animals as human property (merely) because they do not fit our conventional perceptions of property (Taylor 36).
Grandin (140) takes a more practical approach in elaborating the above point by comparing an animal and a screwdriver. He says that although many societies perceive them as property, they are different. To elaborate this point, he uses the US legal system and culture by highlighting how the law allows American citizens to sell, profit, and “eat” their property (among other utilities) (Grandin 140). Although property holders could do the above things, the law restricts them from committing the same acts on animals (the same restrictions do not apply to other properties).
For example, law enforcement officials could arrest a person for using a screwdriver to puncture a cow’s eye. However, they would not penalize the offender for using a hammer to deform a screwdriver. Based on this understanding, the status of animals has slowly changed, in America, because the law now recognizes animal rights. For example, all 50 states have introduced anti-cruelty laws that protect animals from mistreatment (Grimm 3). These laws allow judges to impose fines of up to $125,000, or a jail term of ten years on offenders (Grimm 4).
Similarly, many existing legislations support animal rights (such as the Federal Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act, which requires rescue services to save animals, as they would rescue a human being) (Grimm 3). This trend has equally seen many judges treat dogs as people (some judges even allow dogs to have lawyers).
Consequently, some animals have received damages from the judges (Grimm 3). Other types of “property” do not receive the same status. Using the above examples, Grandin (140) supports the views of animal rights advocates who say animals need rights because they feel pain (a goat can feel pain, but a screwdriver cannot).
It is Immoral to Mistreat Animals
Although many researchers have used different criteria to explain the differences between man and animals, few have bothered to explain man’s higher reasoning that allows them to act ethically. Indeed, unlike many animals, human beings can understand the differences between right and wrong. Based on this higher level of reasoning, people can understand that it is wrong to mistreat animals because they do not have rights.
This argument stems from the immoral and heinous acts that some people do to animals and people alike. Here, it is irrelevant to distinguish between animals and human beings because inflicting pain on another animal is wrong (human beings are animals too). People who do so diminish the moral authority that human beings have on other species.
The utilitarian view condemns how people treat and use animals. This theory says people should evaluate the net use of animals (to human beings) and adopt strategies that lead to the overall net satisfaction of animal and human interests (Singerb 14). Relative to this view, the utilitarian view urges people to “act in such a way as to maximize the expected satisfaction of interests in the world, equally considered” (Singerb 14).
When we apply this theory to animal treatment, it encourages people to imagine themselves in conditions that the animals live and, afterwards, take the best course of action. Using a welfare approach, the theory argues that all people should treat animals in a “humane” way and avoid inflicting unnecessary pain on them. In line with this argument, Singera (1) says it is important for people to take animal rights seriously because species-bias (the justification that most people use to mistreat animals) is like racism and other social practices that many societies dislike.
He also believes that most people who oppose animal rights do so because they rely on invariable animal defects, like their lack of language skills, or advanced cognitive skills, to mistreat animals (Singerb 14). On the other side, the same people do not perceive mentally incapacitated human beings (who cannot talk or profess the same advanced cognitive skills as other people do) as animals. Based on this analysis, Francione (3) says species-bias is the only justification that most people use to exploit animals. However, this reasoning is unjust.
Arguments Against
Many people have used the utilitarian view to support animal rights. However, this view has significant weaknesses that undermine its applicability to animal rights. For example, proponents of these rights say animals have feelings, the way human beings do (Singerb 14). However, Nordin (2) questions the criterion that such people use to measure these feelings (no one has ever been a dog or a cat).
Stated differently, people have used physiological variations in a dog’s behavior to advance the view that they experience pain or emotion, but how do people know how much pain it is feeling? For example, is it correct to assume that a whimpering dog experiences the same pain as a human baby crying? Similarly, it is difficult to draw the same inferences about a dog’s pain to a whale, frog, or another animal. Therefore, many critics question whether animals could express the same emotions as grief, melancholy, and a deep interest in life, as human beings do.
Machan (1) is among groups of researchers who do not understand why animals should have the same rights as people do. Particularly, they say it is a mistake for the government to entrench animal rights in law. For example, they believe that those people who support animal rights should persuade other people to join their cause, as opposed to forcing them to do so, legally (Machan 1).
Stated differently, Machan (2) says if advocates of animal rights do not support killing animals for their fur, they should persuade people to stop buying coats, or other animal products, and not ban the use of the animal product. Again, this argument stems from the belief that no animal enjoys the same basic rights as people do. As shown above, Machan (3) believes that all people should start perceiving this matter as an ethical issue, as opposed to a legal issue. He says people can empathize with the pain that other people feel, but animals cannot.
Therefore, he opposes the views of animal rights advocates, such as Singerb (14). He argues that if animals could empathize with the pain of other animals, people should hold them to the same accountability standards as human beings do (Machan 3). For example, animals should punish other animals for killing and maiming their kind.
Since this suggestion is impractical, Machan (3) says animal advocates have misguided views. However, he defines this issue as a philosophical one (category mistake) because advocates of animal rights strive to impose their hopes and dreams on animals, using human perceptions about life. Overall, although these arguments largely describe the views of many animal right critics, they do not legitimize the inhumane treatment of animals.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The abolitionist and utilitarian views are sympathetic to animal causes. They differ from classical animal welfare views, which do not have a high regard for the creatures, or their rights. Nonetheless, this paper shows that all animals should have the same rights as human beings do because they experience, pain, fear, and emotions. Similarly, animals are not like other types of property because they are human-like. Based on these arguments alone, it is immoral to mistreat animals and cause unnecessary pain to them.
Proponents of animal rights advance the above views. However, their thoughts are not theories of animal rights; instead, they are moral judgments of human actions on animals. Such ideas come from the consequences of what we perceive as right or wrong. For example, if a person violated the right of a person, or an animal, because it produced more good than bad, the law should not punish him. Based on the findings of this research, the “good” includes giving animals the same rights as people do.
Works Cited
Francione, Gary. Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance. September. 2003. PDF file.
Grandin, Temple. Animals Are Not Things: A View on Animal Welfare Based on Neurological, Complexity. 2014. PDF file.
Non-human creatures do not have rights. A right gets defined as a valid claim that must come from a moral agent, under laws that direct both the claimant and defendants (Cohen 91). Animals cannot be said to have rights since the idea of rights is inherently human, and its foundations relate to the concept of a moral world.
Humans must deal with animals in a fair way, similar to how a chair cannot be said to have a dream. Besides, saying that animals have rights confuses groupings as this places them in a moral group that is only relevant to human beings.
Again, animals do not have rights as God made them subordinate to human beings. This notion gets support from the Bible. In the time of creation, man became created last while other animals became created earlier. God then gave men control over all other creatures (Regan par. 34). We can interpret this to mean that human beings have rights over animals.
We can also argue that animals do not have rights, similar to human beings, because their moral stance is totally different. Contrary to the way animals feed on each other human beings behave differently. A lion may kill a zebra and no one will say that the lion does not have the right to kill the zebra, because this is how it obtains its food.
This demonstrates that rights represent the greatest moral result. Besides, animals such as lions and zebras are amoral, which means that morality does not apply to them, and their acts can never be termed as wrong. Thus, no rights exist in the world of animals.
While it is vital for researchers to practice humanity when handling animals, we cannot say that human beings violate their rights, since the idea of rights is not relevant to their situations. For instance, Nazi doctors used the Jews as subjects to advance their research in medicine some years ago. It is clear that this was not a moral approach as the Jews had rights that required respect.
Several people think that animals have rights similar to those of the Jews, which involve protection against participation in medical research. While these people consider animals to have rights, they fail to remember that human beings also have rights that surpass those of animals.
For instance, the United States reported over 50,000 polio related cases and almost 3, 000 polio related deaths in 1952 (Cohen 92). People became frightened due to this ailment, and the government called for polio vaccination among all citizens two years later. Presently, cases of polio are rare.
What we need to remember here is that the polio vaccine could only be established through experimentation with animals. Malaria is also a killer disease that most researchers think that should have a vaccine. While several vaccines have undergone investigation, none of them has emerged successful after trial with animals. This raises the ethical question on whether we need to protect children or animals.
Medical experiments may have adverse effects when carried out using human beings, considering that they are only trials. Using children to test vaccine is awkward and results in death.
Thus, we use rats and monkeys as this is the only available option. Vaccines must undergo tests, and such tests could be extremely dangerous when carried out using human beings as subjects. Thus, we do not have any other way of testing these vaccines apart from using animals.
Defenders of human rights insist that animals have rights just like human children. These defenders term the act of medical scientists as morally wrong. However, they fail to recognize that unless animals get killed, medical scientists cannot advance most significant areas in medicine (Frey 97).
Also, defenders of animal rights fail to recognize that animals do not have moral duties, similar to human beings. While we may consider some acts of human beings as crimes, this does not apply to animals. This is because criminal acts become determined by the moral state of mind of the offender.
Similar to how an insane person cannot be said to have committed a crime, cows and rats cannot be said to commit crimes. This is because all these do not recognize moral duties that guide behaviors or consequences that follow certain actions.
In other words, animals cannot be incriminated as they do not have a moral state of mind that could be violated by other humans. Besides, animals do not have free will, which all moral agents must have. This becomes explained by the fact that they do not have control over their pathological impulses, which makes them lack control over their actions.
Hence, animals are not moral agents, and human beings do not have direct duties towards animals because they can only have such duties towards moral agents. This supports the thesis of this study that non-human creatures do not have rights.
Works Cited
Cohen, Carl. “Do Animals Have Rights?” Ethics and Behaviour. 7.2 (1997): 91-102. Web.
Frey, Reagan. “Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals.” Journal of Medical Ethics. 7.2 (1981): 95–102. Web.
The set of legal principles, which the owners of pets are supposed to comply, has been expanded significantly over the past few decades. The incorporation of new laws and regulations regarding keeping pets into the Vancouver justice system has created premises for improving the treatment of animals and preventing the accidents that may lead to the injury of the animal, its owner, or a third party (Exotic Animal Legislation para. 1).
Judging by the Vancouver principles of animal rights protection, the actions, which Mary Carey took in order to protect her pets, can be qualified as overstepping the boundaries of animal life protection. Therefore, it should be viewed as a breach of animal rights, as Mary attempted to poison the condor and, therefore, violated the rights of the animal. Nevertheless, Mary’s case can be helped if the emphasis is put on the fact that the owner of the condor did not keep the bird in the conditions required by the law.
Moreover, the fact that Mary also acquired a new pet, a robin, which was also extremely vulnerable to the environment in question, shows that she, as an animal owner has no sense of responsibility for her pets whatsoever. Indeed, seeing that the rabbit was already exposed to consistent jeopardy, aggravating the situation by putting another fragile creature (a robin) into the specified environment. Hence, it can be assumed that Mary needs to adopt a more reasonable approach to taking care of her pets.
Case Analysis
From the legal perspective, though, Mary should consider filing for the neighbor for keeping a pet that poses a significant threat to the neighborhood yet is not kept under the required supervision. Whereas the Vancouver law does not prohibit acquiring and keeping pets that are traditionally considered exotic (Exotic Animal Ownership Permission para. 2), these pets need to be kept in an environment that minimizes the threat. The owner of the condor, in their turn, never made sure that the pet is harmless to the neighbors, nor did he take any measures that could have prevented the instance of animal injury in the neighborhood.
Therefore, Mary can be suggested to admit her fault in attempting at poisoning the condor, since lying will only aggravate the situation, and file a counter-claim by stating that the neighbor did not consider the wellbeing of the people living in the vicinity in the first place prior to getting his pet. In other words, Mary might consider claiming that the condor belonging to the neighbor should be classified as a specimen of the so-called “controlled alien species” (BC Ministry of Environment 6.4). According to the existing definition, the above-mentioned concept concerns the animals that pose “a risk to the health or safety of any person or poses a risk to property, wildlife or wildlife habitat” (BC Ministry of Environment 6.4). The specified claim aligns with the key tenets of the Vancouver law.
Conclusion
The above-mentioned measure will allow reducing the threat to not only Mary’s pets but also the people living in the vicinity by making the minister consider either the transfer of the specified animal to the corresponding qualified animal shelter services (e.g., the animal shelter) or to impose a set of more rigid regulations on the owner of the condor, i.e., maintaining close supervision of the bird, keeping it at a major distance from Mary’s pets, including the latter in a protection order, etc..At the same time, it can be suggested that Mary should take more efficient care of her pets by making sure that they are not hurt and supervising them closer.
Works Cited
BC Ministry of Environment. 2015. Wildlife Act. Web.
When one group of people obtains several rights regarding their health disabilities, social status, or financial aspect, the crowd is not always able to understand the idea of such a gesture. Some individuals start comparing their opportunities and demand from the government or particular organizations to expand their options as well. One of the examples is perfectly described by David Leonhardt in his article “It’s Time to End the Scam of Flying Pets” for The New York Times in 2018. The author discusses Dexter the Peacock case as a “bizarre situation” when “trust matters so much to a well-functioning society” (Leonhardt, 2018, para. 13). The main idea of this article is to show how people distort the truth and make selfish decisions just because they can do it. Modern America is aware of the emotional support animals’ concept, but its essence goes far beyond its planned outcome. In this essay, the goal is to compare the conditions when people have to use animals to improve their quality of life, and when people want to use animals for their benefit.
Position in the Article
There are situations when people ask to carry on their pets in the cabin and introduce enough reasons to prove the appropriateness of their decision. They buy special equipment and follow the instructions because it is the only opportunity to make flying with pets possible. However, Leonhardt’s story is not about specially trained seeing-eye dogs but a peacock named Dexter. A woman described Dexter as an “emotional-support animal,” but without certain “therapeutic benefits” (Leonhardt, 2018, para. 2). As soon as United Airlines declined her request, social media began discussing the situation, offering several for and against statements. Within a short period, the problem of boarding a peacock became a serious theme for discussion in the United States. Leonhardt (2018) demonstrates his concerns about “a modern culture that too often values individual preference over communal well-being” (para. 6). When people want to board with animals, they cannot recognize the existing positive and negative aspects.
Reasons to Support Leonhardt
The article under analysis contains several strong ideas to prove that flying with pets turns out to be an urgent social issue. Leonhardt (2018) correctly admits that certain problems occurred as soon as people “realized that they could game the system” (para. 8). Instead of following the rules established by the Department of Transportation, cheating was developed, provoking new damage to society. According to the Air Carrier Access Act of 2003, service animals and emotional support animals are allowed to accompany their handlers in the cabin (Younggren et al., 2016, p. 256). However, with time, people learn how to find or buy fake evidence and have their pets on board without any serious reasons, just a personal whim. It was also properly stated that some passengers could have allergies and want to be sure that their traveling is not spoiled by the presence of allergens around. It is hard to imagine how a huge peacock, as an innocent emotional support animal, could be placed in the cabin without causing discomfort among passengers.
Arguments Against Leonhardt
At the same time, some aspects of Leonhardt’s discussion could lead to ambiguous thoughts. He uses such facts as animal urination, defecation, barking, and biting as the reasons for not allowing pets on board (Leonhardt, 2018). Still, today, people are free to develop their principles and positions and appreciate pet love more than the child’s care. There is a “licensed mental health professional” opinion about animal support for disabled individuals (Younggren et al., 2016, p.257). From this perspective, pets supporters could say that the presence of a child on board may be characterized by similar discontent when a child cries, pees, spits up or kicks a chair. The line between human and animal rights is weak, and it is easy to find drawbacks in any position. The point is that the law was officially approved, and it is the responsibility of people to follow it or cheat on it. People make decisions that are not always fair or ethically correct, and such mistakes are observed in every area of human life. It seems that society needs the law to start thinking about new ways of how to get around restrictions.
Conclusion
In general, the chosen article and the idea of flying pets continue attracting attention because of the impossibility to choose one definite position and prove its correctness. The problem lies not in the weakness of the law or the haziness of a situation with a peacock but in people’s intention to use facts, cheat, and demonstrate their selfishness to its full extent. Dishonest behavior becomes a norm that influences human consciousness and provokes decisions that are not always easy to understand and accept. The author of the article does not want to blame or support airline companies or passengers but to show how one event could change the whole legal aspect and its appropriateness for society. Using pets as an excuse for personal desires and using pets for help are two different things that reveal true human nature.
References
Leonhardt, D. (2018). It’s time to end the scam of flying pets. The New York Times. Web.
Younggren, J. N., Boisvert, J. A., & Boness, C. L. (2016). Examining emotional support animals and role conflicts in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(4), 255-260.