Animal Rights Movement: Global Impact on Businesses and Their Marketing

The animal rights movement, specifically the anti-vivisection campaigns, has greatly increased public awareness to the horrors and irrelevancies of animal experimentation for consumer products. It has sparked the creation of highly profitable niche market; new companies have been established and have caused marketing of organized cruelty-free brands and products. The supporters of the animal rights campaign are especially concerned with the abuse of animals for cosmetics and medical testing, the killing of animals for fur and hunting for interest. In addition, a cruel treatment of animals has even fostered a growing tendency for vegetarianism. In that regard, there observed a dramatic growth of the awareness among the animal protection organizations that have started a vigorous fight against indiscriminate use of animals in testing.

Despite the fact that the number of animals applied foe testing is relatively small, many trivial products like cosmetics and household abstergents are tested on animals for their toxicity. In that regard, due to the rise of the animal rights campaigns, many producers of household and cosmetics reduced the animal testing or even cancelled completely (Garner 142). Moreover, international animal rights organizations, such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), have largely been responsible for publicity exposing the horrors of animal testing for consumer products. A variety of tactics has been used to provoke outrage and disgust in consumers.

To propel the rise of awareness among both the producers and consumers, PETA released the film Unnecessary fuss that depicts the episodes of unjustifiable abuse of primates (Newkirk et al 1995). The film was shot by the researchers that imposed the brain damage of primates. The video proves the researchers’ negligence and cruel treatment of baboons; it is a bright evidence of professional incompetence (Delaney 214).

BUAV’s main purpose is to make consumers buy the products that have not been tested on animals. It promotes numerous plans and schemes to increase the awareness of the customers. The campaign’s choice was cruelty-free policy directed at the prevention of animal experimenting on the cosmetic products. It released a wide-range of films disclosing a veritable picture of the cruel test inflicting animals; the BUAV also intervened with the mass media network to expose the thrilling facts about animal sufferings (Lent 188). It is worth saying that BUAV often uses law as an inherent part of the fight against animal testing.

Recent public opinion polls conducted by the BUAV support the continuous success of the anti-vivisection campaigns; in the United Kingdom, seventy-nine percent of consumers would discontinue usage of a product if it was found to be tested on animals. Eighty-one percent of British People do not agree to use the household products that were subjected to the animal experimenting. As the use of animals is growingly becoming unjustified, as it is shown in the recent research (Animal Aid unpaged). Furthermore, eighty-three percent of British women are against of distribution of cosmetics and household products being the result of animal testing (Animal Aid unpaged). Therefore, the possibility to use the non-animals methods of testing household products and cosmetics would not only deprive the animals of pain and sufferings but also attract a greater target audience.

According to the survey, there observes a dramatic increase in ethical spending in the UK in order to enhance the protection of animals and to reduce experiments. Despite the fact that the looking good is the most profitable business engaging the biggest companies, there also observes an increase of public awareness and the ethical dilemma as far as the animal testing is concerned. According to the report of Bank’s annual Consumerism of 2006, the ethical spending in the UK in 2005 was £ 29.3 billion in comparison with £173 million spent on the cosmetics. This is 1.8 percent higher than it was in 2004 so that the ethical products are in more demand for the current customers. Moreover, the ethical marker of 2007 counts $ 57.8 billion thus being increased by 15 percents compared with the previous year; ethical cosmetics segment reached $ 794 million, which is 16 percent higher from 2006 (Business Cosmetics unpaged). As it could be viewed, there is a high tendency for the abolition of animal tested products.

Considering the animal testing policy conducted by the European Union, there exists the European Partnership for the Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) suggesting its own animal testing control program. The programs issues admit the use of animals still having some limitations. Thus, it establishes the safety and the extent of risk imposed on animals during the test; EPAA also presupposes the account of the measures in redundancy of animal testing particularly in “hot spots”. Consequently, the European organizations do not exclude the implementation of animal testing thus only creating certain legal constraints.

Nowadays, the consumer may often encounter “cruelty-free” and “not tested on animals” pseudo-labels. To preserve a high reputation of the company, they resort to illegal methods for their cosmetics to buy. The consumers experience difficulty and misconception, as they are not sure whether they use the ‘cruelty free’ product. The research proves that such labels as ‘cruelty-free’, ‘finished product not tested on animals’, ‘never tested on animals’ or ‘Against animal testing’ may mean nothing at all and instead they may lead to the customers’ disbeliefs. This is explained by the fact the ingredients may have been tested in animals, even though the final product was not tested (GoCrueltyFree unpaged).

The heightened confusion over the misrepresentation of cruelty-free cosmetic and household product labels propelled the 1996 creations of the Humane Cosmetics Standard (HCS) and the Humane Household Product Standard (HHPS). Albeit the assistance of a small group of animal protection organizations across the European Union and North America, the BUAV spearheaded the development of both Standards (GoCrueltyFree unpaged). The BUAV managed to resolve this confusion by providing an exclusive logo that could be placed on the cruelty-free products; this sign will surely mean that neither the ingredients not its finished product are tested on animals. The above-mentioned standards are considered the first step in providing the consumers with ethical product. The newly designed leaping bunny managed to increase the market segmentation of the ethical consumer market. Those companies who were approved by BUAV should follow the certain code that bans the use of animals in testing; the logo also imposes the liability for not using the ingredients subjected to the animal testing; finally, the leaping bunny company is prohibited to be involved with business relations with other companies who still use animal tested products.

One of the animal testing-free companies is Lush Cosmetics, the most popular producer of the bathroom products with its headquarters in the United Kingdom and subsidiaries in 36 countries. The company was founded in 1994 by the married couple that decided to open the store in Poole. The main peculiarity of their products lies in the use of natural ingredients such as fruits and vegetables, essential oils and synthetic-free components (Lush unpaged). The company’s philosophy is built on the abolition of animal testing to preserve the high-quality image of the company. Lush Cosmetics support the idea of the leaping bunny and rejects the legislation administered by REACH (Brussels, the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical) considering this legal pieces too complicated. The company believes that animal testing is the matter of the past, as such experiment does not guarantee the safety of the products.

Another popular company that advocates the Animal Rights Movement is Beauty Without Cruelty. Like Lush Cosmetics, it produces the soap, lotions, and shampoo whose ingredients are made from organic products. The Company with a 40 year experience proved that animal testing is an unnecessary method for the improving the quality of the products. The products are acceptable for the vegetarians; moreover, these cosmetic outputs are fragrance-free. The choice of the name is predetermined by their philosophical approach to the manufacture. As it can be seen, this company supports the civil rights movement (Beauty Without Cruelty unpaged). BWC is also the founder of BWC Charitable Trust, that advocated the animal welfare.

Drawing on the conclusion, the civil rights movement is rather popular in the UK and all over the world due to the fact that there is an increase of self-awareness among the consumers and the producers. Therefore, the new policy implies the introduction of elimination of animal testing and introduction of natural products.

Works Cited

“Beauty Without Cruelty”. Beauty Without Cruelty Petaluma 2008. Web.

Delaney, David Law and Nature. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Ethical products- Beauty is more than skin deep Business Cosmetics 2009. Web.

European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing 2006. Web.

Garner, Robert. Animals, politics, and morality. ND: Manchester University Press. 1993.

“Go Cruelty-Free”. BUAV. 2007. Web.

Fresh Handmade Cosmetics 1994. Web.

Lent, Adam, British social movements since 1945: sex, color, peace and power. UK: Palgrave Mcmillan, 2001.

Unnecessary Fuss. 1995. Newkirk, Ingrid and Pacheco, Alex. University of Pennsylvania, Animal Liberation Front, VHS.

“Useful points for letter on animal experiments” (2009). Animal Aid. Web.

Animal Rights in Whistler, British Columbia: A Case Study of 100 Slaughtered Sledge Dogs

Overview

The heinous slaughter of 100 dogs from a pack of 300 by Howling Dog tours shocked the world revealing a dirty secret of the dog sledge industry. Related to lesson 4 about animal rights, this case study involves the slaughter of 100 healthy sledge dogs by Howling Dog Tours in Whistler, British Columbia (B.C.) that took place between the dates of 21 and 23 April 2010.

After the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, there was a drop in the sledging dog business; thus an employee of the Howling Tour Company slaughtered 100 dogs to make the business more cost-effective. The allegations of the slaughter started after “a WorkSafe document leaked to the media in January 2011” (“Update on Sled Dog Investigation”, par 15). The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, (SPCA) launched investigations after the employee “filed a claim with the Worker’s Compensation Board of B.C. for post-traumatic stress, after being ordered to kill dozens of dogs” (100 healthy Sled Dogs Slaughtered in Whistler, B.C., par 3). This involved hiring a team of forensic experts to collect evidence “from bodies of more than 56 dogs exhumed from the mass grave (“Update on Sled Dog Investigation”, par 7). The forensic evidence gathered from the grave was used in the case against the tour company.

After the incident, there were demonstrations with people calling for tougher laws against animal cruelty, which had not changed since 1892. Currently, B.C. has the toughest animal cruelty laws in Canada, with imprisonment of 24 months instead of the previous 6 months and a maximum penalty of $75,000 from the previous $10,000 (Pemberton, par 1).

Challenges/Opportunities

The slump of business after the Winter Olympics proved to be a challenge for the tour operator to maintain the pack of dogs. This led to the slaughtering of the animals after it became a problem to find new homes for them (100 healthy Sled Dogs Slaughtered in Whistler, B.C., par 1). According to Moriarty, manager at SPCA, it is “legal to shoot an animal, as long as it dies instantly” (par 12), a task that became challenging on the large pack of dogs. This inhumane act proved so when the employee used a knife to kill an aggressive dog after he ran out of ammunition (par 6). He also “describes a dog that survived a shot to the face: “its eye was hanging off, and it was still running around” ” (par 5). Whistler did not have any legislation concerning animal cruelty, but there were provisions in the SPCA act that allowed Criminal Code charges. Previously, animal cruelty was difficult to be accepted by Crown prosecutors as a criminal charge (Cooper and Sullivan, par 22). To prove the dogs were killed in an inhumane way, SPCA dug up the mass grave to compile forensic evidence for its investigation.

The slaughter of the 100 sledge dogs provided an opportunity for strict laws against animal cruelty. Currently, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, amended by the provincial government ensures sledge dog companies operating on Crown Land in British Columbia have their animals inspected annually (B.C. Dogs Must be Inspected Annually, par 1). This incident brought sharp focus to the rights of animals since most of them were killed mercilessly without the knowledge of the authorities. This incident was followed by demonstrations and petitions by animal rights activists forcing law enforcers to enact tougher rules to guard against animal cruelty.

Case – Lesson Connections

The slaughter of the 100 sledge dogs can be compared to the Canadian seal hunt in lesson 4, concerning the philosophical perspective of the animal rights movement. There are two philosophical perspectives of viewing animal rights; the Utilitarian Perspective and the Rights-Based perspective (Lesson 4, slide 1). However, according to Moriarty, the methods used to kill the sledge dogs were inhumane. SPCA seems to be adopting the Rights-Based Perspective, which focuses on whether the action of killing the dogs was inherently right or wrong. Moriarty believed “that lethal injections supervised by a veterinarian would have been the more humane way to cull the dogs” (100 healthy Sled Dogs Slaughtered in Whistler, B.C., par 13) than slitting their throats with a knife. This proved when Moriarty said, “….By fully investigating these allegations can we send a clear message that we are a humane society where brutality and violence against animals will not be tolerated” (“Update on Sled Dog Investigation”, par 19). SPCA focused on the action leading to the death of the dogs, an act considered inhumane but not the consequences of killing the dogs (Lecture 4, slide 1).

Another lesson that can be taken from the seal hunt protest is the methods used to kill the animals. Lesson 4 slide 17 proves the inhumane way the seals are left to suffer on the ice after being clubbed or shot. The seals do not die instantly; a case which is similar to the Whistler incident where a shot sledge dog presumed dead tried crawling from the mass grave after 20 min.

Works Cited

  1. “100 healthy Sled Dogs Slaughtered in Whistler, B.C.” ctv.ca. CTV News., 2011.
  2. .” cbc.ca. CBCNEWS., 2011. Web.
  3. Cooper, Sam and Sean Sullivan “Massacre horrifies B.C.: Man shoots 100 sled dogs…” theprovince.com. The Province., 2011.
  4. Pemberton, Kim. “B.C. introduces tougher animal cruelty laws.” Vancouversun.com. 2011.
  5. “Update on Sled Dog Investigation.” Spca.bc.ca. BCSPCA., 2011.

Fight for Animal Rights in Modern Realities

Introduction

Periodically, animals and their existence are perceived as something initially given and obvious. People are not inclined to pay attention to the problems of beings of a different kind than humans. That is why social problems and issues of improving the lives of their biological species worry them most of all. For many of its issues, public attention bypasses the perspective of the animal world. In particular, this situation concerns the interaction between animals and humans. The questions this essay will try to answer may seem uncomfortable, but they are of constant and extreme relevance. The important issue is how much an animal dependent on a person lives its own life, receives advantages and opportunities, and does not suffer from human interference. In other words, this essay is interested in the issue of non-harm to animals by humans, whether harm is done consciously or due to ignorance or already established cultural attitudes. Animal rights appear to be a problematic field in which ethical and religious beliefs, trends in sociological thought, and approaches of various scientific disciplines collide.

A Variety of Approaches

It is required to establish a certain cultural and methodological framework in order to be truly ethically accurate and avoid exaggerated or inadequate understanding of the problem. The ethical treatment of animals can be viewed from several approaches that can provide a detailed view of the problem. Thus, it becomes possible not to limit the research focus to only one side of the question. This implies the ability not only to deeply understand the problem but also to develop a strategy in order to improve the problem situation, affecting the most hidden and problematic areas. In general, one can conclude that this movement seeks to erase the distinction between moral and legal separation in the framework of the relationship between humans and non-human animals.

When starting a discussion about the protection of animal rights, it is necessary to take into account that every activist movement is forced to exist not only in the legal and ethical but also in the cultural field. Culture turns out to be the main, sometimes the only way of interaction between people and a means of expressing a specific philosophy. At the same time, culture, and in particular the media, is not only a connecting but also a limiting tool, representing the formed prejudices, which is an obstacle for activists. Highlighting the main mechanisms of interaction between activists and people in the context of culture, such fields as veganism, environmental protection, and the issue of food availability should be noted (Cherry 10). The medical benefits of not eating animals are proven but not often represented enough in the media. Religious attitudes can be an obstacle to the advancement of vegan ideology but also work to prove its compliance with the canons of theological doctrines. All these angles of view of the problem are interconnected and collide in the problem field.

Main Theoretical Approaches

Within the animal rights movement, there is a real variety of separate movements, which seem to be united by a single goal. However, activists have different views and formulations for this goal and offer different approaches to achieve it. It is required to give an overview of the basic theoretical attitudes and strategies that are proposed by both the scientific community and activists of the movement in order to give them a fair analytical assessment.

In describing the basic theoretical attitudes of the movement, two main models should be distinguished according to which the ideology of the activists of this movement is built. The French theory views the fight for animal rights as placing them as creatures in a legal field, requiring them to be protected from human abuse (Cherry 15). But the American theoretical model, which is more focused on animals as an element of the production, deserves attention as well. In the American model, the fight is primarily against industrialized agriculture, which uses countless animals in mass production. Thus, it becomes possible to single out two generalized ways of approaching the problem – animal rights as a separate unit and the larger problem of the mass exploitation of animals in production. A balance is needed between the two, and perhaps a more complex structural organization of activist groups to cover both spectra of the problem.

The Influence of Media on Animal Rights Activism

Noteworthy for consideration is the theoretical neologism “im-mediacy,” proposed by scientists to describe the method of activism for animal rights. The researcher proposes a structural approach to understanding the motivation of animal rights activists. The activist is perceived as someone driven by an emotional affect, which exists as a result of the perception of a certain sign system (Vea 1590). In particular, this effect is caused through the perception of the media, on TV, or on the Internet, which demonstrates the situation of peaceful interaction between man and the animal world.

This gives the impression of a strong affectation and a sense of the need to act towards the embodiment of this ideal situation. Indeed, it seems promising to perceive this problem through the power of human affectation. People do find themselves subject to media perception, which elicits an emotional response. This allows one to talk about the possibility of direct influence on people through social advertising that produces a real emotional effect. Through media of a similar orientation, there is a real opportunity to draw attention to the main problems of interaction between humans and the environment, in particular, the human relationship with the animal world. The feeling that such a social advertisement should evoke is a feeling of closeness with the animal world and, therefore, a true affective desire to take care of animals.

Religion and Animal Rights

One of the factors that must also be considered is religion and culture among animal rights activists. Human ideas about the specifics of the problem can come from the ideas inherent in one of the varieties of cultural and religious worldviews that exist in modern American reality (Greenebaum 335). Possible contradictions resulting from the parameters imposed by another culture and religion should be removed using the first-order ethical principle. It should be noted the need to compare views on the problem of animal rights, which is beyond the bounds of unquestioning consideration of the rules of culture embedded in humans (Woodruff 2). Proposals for animal rights activism should be viewed in terms of validity and, accordingly, true value.

Geographical and Cultural Implications

The situation of animal rights and their interaction with the needs and human rights is not only quite problematic but also must be considered in different local geographic contexts. There is a particular study devoted to the interaction and conflicts between animals and humans in the Arctic zone, which gives a contradictory perspective on the motivations of the movement (Rogers & Ingram 11). It follows from the study that environmental protection activities can interfere with the internal balance of the already established life of society. The motivation of animal rights activists can be overwhelming, violating the way in which a developing society was formed. In borderline social situations, such as in the Arctic, animal rights activists are in many ways similar to the colonizing Christian missionary movement of the past millennium. Lacking the perspective of another culture and a sense of the need to respect it, the movement can be destructive to an entire cell of the established society.

A Look from a Personal Perspective of the Activists

However, one should also look at the movement from the perspective of those directly involved in it. Through this perspective, one can understand that the aspirations of activists are based on good intentions and require a lot of effort from them, including a psychological one. The fight for animal rights for each participant in the movement implies deeply intrinsic motivation, but it requires participation in the movement as in an active system. But the system really is both ramified and interacting and, accordingly, has internal conflicts. Problems within the system, cases of marginalization of participants in a movement, or individual industries involved in the movement can have a traumatic effect on the psychology of the participants themselves (Gorski et al. 364). This situation leads to mental exhaustion and psychological burnout, in connection with which many animal rights activists are forced to suspend their activities in the name of preserving their own well-being and internal balance.

Conclusion

Thus, the animal rights field is productive to be viewed from a variety of analytical angles. The fight for animal rights is presented as a disruptive field in which conflicting cultural attitudes are confronted and reevaluated. The ethical principle of no harm, however, should be perceived as fundamental in the context of the fight for animal rights. Only if this principle is taken into account as the main one does it becomes possible to talk about the problem in the real framework of bringing benefits to the planet.

Works Cited

Cherry, Elizabeth. Culture and Activism: Animal Rights in France and the United States. New York: Routledge, 2016.

Elizabeth Cherry is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Manhattanville College. The book presents a juxtaposition of two schools of animal rights, the French and the American, outlining different cultural contexts and ethical focuses.

Gorski, Paul, et al. “’Nobody’s paying me to cry’: the causes of activist burnout in United States animal rights activists”. Social Movement Studies, vol. 18, no. 3., 2019, pp. 364-380.

Paul Gorsky is an educator in the field of equality and social justice. The article is devoted to strengthening the psychological and social causes of emotional burnout in the field of animal rights activists.

Greenebaum, Jessica. “Cross-cultural examination of the animal rights movement”. Society & Animals, vol. 26, no. 3, 2018, pp. 335-338.

Jessica Greenbaum is professor of sociology at Central Connecticut State University. The article provides a brief overview of various cultural trends in the context of the fight for animal rights.

Rogers, Kathleen and Darcy Ingram. “Decolonizing environmentalism in the Arctic? Greenpeace, complicity and negotiating the contradictions of solidarity in the Inuit Nunangat.” A Journal for and about Social Movements, vol. 11, no. 2, 2019, pp. 11-34

Kathleen Rogers practices as an environmental attorney and is a President of Earth Day Network. Darcy Ingram teaces history and sociology at Selkirk College. The article is devoted to the history of the adaptation of the Greenpeace Organization to the real needs of the indigenous population of the Arctic over the past fifty years.

Vea, Tanner. “The ethical sensations of im-mediacy: Embodiment and multiple literacies in animal rights activists’ learning with media technologies”. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 50, no. 4, 2019, pp. 1589-1602.

Tanner Vea is a learning scientist practicing in the sociocultural field. The article proposes a structuralist approach to the analysis of the impact of media on human consciousness in the context of compassion for animal rights.

Woodruff, Michael L. “Sentience is the foundation of animal rights.” Animal Sentience, vol. 23, no. 18, 2019.

Michael L. Woodruff is Professor Emeritus of Biomedical Sciences in the Quillen College of Medicine. The article examines the similar abilities in humans and animals to feel pleasure and pain, which is a key element in the perception of the issue of animal rights.

Circus as the Central Place of Animal Rights Violation

Elephants dance the polonaise, sea lions juggle balls, bears ride bicycles, a tiger jumps through a burning hoop – all these are attractions with four-legged performers that thrill the audience, especially the little ones. Nevertheless, animal rights activists have sounded the alarm because circus tricks are unnatural for wild creatures; they are considered mockery and torture. There should be a thoroughgoing prohibition on the exploitation of animals in circuses, as this issue is contrary to humane treatment and is a direct violation of their rights.

Since the 1970s, numerous nations have been setting up laws to treat creatures and guarantee their essential protection. International agreements were concluded, recognizing that animals are sentient beings whose basic needs must be respected and protected (Marino 148). Significantly, the tricks taught to animals for the public’s entertainment have nothing familiar with their natural behavior. The only way to make them obey is to punish and deprive them of food so that the poor starving creature will do anything for a coveted bite (Arnold-Foster 146). Animals must maintain and express behavior specific to their species, and the concept of circuses contradicts this shepherd.

Furthermore, the phrase “animal performers” often evokes positive emotions because acting is always associated with romance. However, unlike their human counterparts, animals never voluntarily choose the profession of actor. Circus experience means losing freedom forever, spending 95% of the time alone, in a cramped cage where animals cannot stand up to the full height and turn around (Ward 131). They suffer extensively, but there is nothing they can change because humans are more thoughtful and cunningly use force.

It can be concluded that introducing restrictions on the exploitation of animals in the circus is a necessary measure in the current world. Creatures must be permitted to follow their instincts and be in their natural habitat because that is their fundamental freedom. All people must comprehend that the rights of animals must be protected and, therefore, one must refuse to visit performances that have been created through violence and cruelty.

Works Cited

Arnold-Forster, Tom. “Rethinking the Scopes Trial: Cultural Conflict, Media Spectacle, and Circus Politics.” Journal of American Studies, vol. 56, no.1, 2022, pp.142-166.

Marino, Lori. “Commentary: A Belmont Report for Animals? Rights or Welfare?.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 29, no.1, 2020, pp. 67-70.

Ward, Roger. “Living with Animals: Rights, Responsibilities, and Respect by Erin McKenna.” The pluralist, vol.16, no.3, 2021, pp. 130-132.

Communication Activities by Animal Rights Advocates

Introduction

Advocates for animal rights employ a number of communication strategies to convince others to embrace their viewpoints. However, research indicates that these actions could be more effective at influencing those who do not already believe in animal rights. Animal rights supporters often present their arguments in a not persuasive manner. In place of analytical statements and proof, they sometimes depend primarily on emotional appeals and personal anecdotes, for example. This is more likely to connect with individuals who already support animal rights, but it is difficult to convince those who do not.

Another reason animal rights supporters may fail to persuade others is because they often take an aggressive stance. “Animal rights is the view that the interests of animals should be given the same consideration as the interests of humans.” (Munro, 2022, p. 4). This is likely to make those who have yet to be dedicated to animal rights less receptive to the message. There is evidence that animal rights campaigners are beginning to recognize the need to modify their strategy if they want to be more persuasive. For instance, there has recently been a trend away from shock tactics and towards the use of more uplifting messaging. However, it needs to be clarified if this affects the overall efficacy of communication operations. “Anti-speciesism is the view that there is no morally relevant difference between humans and non-human animals.” (Munro, 2022, p. 5).

Animal rights campaigners’ communication actions are only likely to persuade individuals who are already dedicated to animal rights. “Animal rights and anti-speciesism are often seen as being in conflict with each other.” (Munro, 2022, p. 6). Suppose advocates wish to be more effective in influencing others. In that case, they must adapt their strategy and concentrate on using more reasoned arguments and facts, adopting a less combative stance, and avoiding shock tactics.

In order to reach out to the public and promote their cause, animal rights campaigners often employ a variety of communication techniques and tactics. However, it is sometimes stated that these actions only appeal to people who are already dedicated to animal rights and do nothing to persuade others who are not already on board with the cause. This article will test this claim by evaluating the effectiveness of ten different animal rights communication initiatives in reaching and persuading persons who are not already animal rights supporters.

Meat is Murder

The first campaign I will examine is the “Meat is Murder” campaign conducted by PETA. The ‘Meat is Murder’ campaign is an animal rights initiative organized by PETA. The campaign attempts to raise awareness about animal suffering in the meat industry and urge individuals to embrace a vegan lifestyle. Since 1981, the campaign has used a number of strategies to increase awareness of the problem (Munro, 2022, p. 199).

These had included high-profile stunts, such as when PETA activists staged a “die-in” at a McDonald’s restaurant, as well as low-key activities, such as distributing leaflets and hosting educational events. The campaign’s success in raising awareness of animal cruelty in the meat industry has been remarkable. Specifically, it has contributed to altering public perceptions of the meat industry and increasing public awareness of the suffering of animals raised for food. The ‘Meat is Murder’ campaign has also been effective in influencing individuals to adopt a vegan lifestyle.

The use of harsh language and gruesome imagery may be off-putting to meat-eaters, who may feel that they are being lectured or preached at. Moreover, these techniques may strengthen the idea that animal rights advocates are fanatics who are out of touch with mainstream norms. It is crucial to remember that most people consume meat and that they are not inherently hostile to animal welfare (Munro, 2022, p. 200). Persuading meat-eaters to alter their eating patterns would need a more sophisticated and sympathetic approach that respects their beliefs and concerns.

One method to achieve this is to emphasize the health advantages of a plant-based diet. Many individuals are interested in eating more healthily, and this may be an excellent incentive for change. There is also a rising awareness of the environmental implications of meat production. Raising animals for food demands land, water, and energy and contributes to climate change (Munro, 2022, p. 202).

Some individuals may be prepared to limit their meat intake for the earth’s good. It is also crucial to realize that individuals consume meat for varied reasons. Some do it for the flavor, while others consider it a protein or ritual source. Understanding these diverse motives helps to identify common ground and produce messages that are more likely to be received. Ultimately, the purpose should be to generate a debate about meat-eating rather than to lecture or preach.

Make Fur History

The second campaign I will examine is the United States Humane Society’s “Make Fur History” campaign. For decades, animal rights activists have argued that using animals for their fur is cruel and unnecessary. In recent years, they have increased their efforts to convince the public to boycott fur products. The animal rights organization PETA’s “Make Fur History” campaign has been one of the most visible. The campaign features graphic images of animals being killed for their fur, endorsements from celebrities, and advertisements aimed at the fashion industry (Proulx, 2022). PETA contends that there is no such thing as “humane” fur and that the only way to end animal cruelty is to stop purchasing and wearing fur products. Critics of the campaign assert that it is ineffective and disregards the needs of indigenous people who depend on fur for a living.

In addition, they note that some synthetic fur products are derived from petroleum, a nonrenewable resource. I believe that the “Make Fur History” campaign is partially effective. It raises awareness about the issue of animal cruelty in the fur industry and also exerts pressure on the fashion industry to alter its practices. The campaign’s emphasis on the adverse effects of the fur industry on the environment has been one of its most successful aspects. In addition to being cruel to animals, the fur trade is also one of the leading causes of habitat destruction and pollution, as highlighted by the campaign (Proulx, 2022). This has resonated with many individuals who are concerned about the environment and has contributed to the argument that fur is neither sustainable nor ethical.

Stop Animal Testing

Cruelty-Free International’s “Stop Animal Testing” campaign will be the subject of my third analysis. Animal testing is a contentious subject. On one side are those who argue that it is essential for saving lives and advancing medical knowledge. On the other hand, some say that it is cruel and inhumane and that there are more humane ways to achieve the same goals. The ‘Stop Animal Testing’ campaign conducted by the animal rights organization Cruelty-Free International is an example of a campaign designed to increase public awareness of the issue and persuade individuals to alter their behavior. “Animal testing is a long and costly process, with an uncertain outcome.” (C.J. Read, 2018, p. 9). Numerous elements comprise the campaign, including public demonstrations, social media activity, and the creation of educational materials.

One of the campaign’s primary objectives is to persuade individuals to stop purchasing animal-tested products. To this end, the campaign has produced a number of guides that list businesses that conduct animal testing and those that do not. The campaign also encourages individuals to sign petitions and send letters to corporations expressing their opposition to animal testing (Read, 2018, p. 7). The campaign also aims to raise awareness about the issue of animal testing. The movement produces a variety of educational materials, including fact sheets, infographics, and videos, to achieve this goal (Read, 2018, p. 7). These materials are intended to educate individuals on the reality of animal testing and the alternatives that exist.

The “Stop Animal Testing” campaign has been active for several years and has achieved a number of victories. Remarkably, the campaign has been credited with convincing a number of major corporations to cease animal testing (Read 2018, p. 7). Additionally, the campaign has been successful in bringing attention to the issue of animal testing. Notably, the campaign’s educational materials have been widely disseminated and have reached many people. Nonetheless, the campaign has also been criticized. Some argue that the campaign is ineffective because it needs to convince people to change their behavior sufficiently. Others say that the campaign is too pessimistic and lacks a positive outlook on the future.

End Factory Farming

Mercy for Animals’ “End Factory Farming” campaign will be the subject of my fourth examination. In recent years, there has been a heightened awareness of the horrifying conditions that factory farm animals endure. Factory farming is an industrial process in which animals are confined and have little to no opportunity to engage in natural behaviors or to move freely. The animals are frequently subjected to extreme confinement, physical alterations, and routine antibiotic and drug administration.

As public awareness of factory farming’s cruelty has increased, so has opposition to it. The animal rights organization Mercy for Animals has launched the “End Factory Farming” campaign in response to this growing opposition (Lymber, 2019, p. 74). The purpose of the campaign is to inform the public about the cruelty of factory farming and encourage people to make more humane food choices. The “Stop Factory Farming” campaign has been incredibly effective in raising public awareness of the issue. The campaign’s website has received millions of visitors. The campaign has also been successful in motivating individuals to make more humane food choices. In addition to educating the public about the cruelty of factory farming, the campaign has also inspired individuals to support alternatives to factory-farmed products that are more humane.

Save the Elephants

The “Save the Elephants” campaign will be examined as the fifth campaign. The Save the Elephants organization, is responsible for the “Save the Elephants” animal rights campaign. The campaign aims to raise awareness about the plight of elephants and encourage people to help them. The campaign has been active for many years and has amassed a large number of supporters. “We must speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Each of us can make a difference for animals.” (Read, 2018, p. 13). The campaign was effective in bringing attention to the plight of elephants. It has also successfully motivated individuals to assist them (Pope, 2018, p. 124). The campaign has been active for many years and has amassed a large number of supporters.

The campaign has employed a variety of strategies to bring attention to the plight of elephants. It has utilized traditional media like television and radio advertisements, as well as social media like Facebook and Twitter (Pope, 2018, p. 125). Additionally, the campaign has organized events and rallies to raise awareness of the issue. “The Elephant Crisis Fund is the first and only global initiative dedicated exclusively to stopping the elephant poaching and ivory trafficking crisis.” (Pope, 2018, p. 124).

The campaign was effective in bringing attention to the plight of elephants. However, it has yet to be successful in preventing elephant hunting. In recent years, the annual number of elephants killed has actually increased. This is due to Asia’s growing demand for ivory. “It is estimated that as many as 35,000 elephants are killed each year for their ivory. The ECF is committed to stopping the killing, stopping the trafficking and stopping the demand.” (Pope, 2018, p. 125). The “Save the Elephants” campaign is a well-intentioned effort that has succeeded in bringing attention to the plight of elephants. However, it has yet to be successful in preventing elephant hunting. To be successful, the campaign must concentrate on decreasing the demand for ivory.

Stop Animal Abuse

Humane Society International’s “Stop Animal Abuse” campaign is the sixth campaign I will discuss. Humane Society International (HSI), an international animal protection organization, runs the ‘Stop Animal Abuse’ animal rights campaign (Shaheer, Carr, and Insch, 2021, p. 4). The campaign aims to raise awareness about animal abuse and encourage individuals to take action against it. The campaign was launched in response to the worldwide increase in animal abuse. HSI estimates that over 1 billion animals are inhumanely mistreated or killed each year. The campaign aims to end this abuse by bringing attention to the issue and encouraging individuals to take action against it.

The campaign has three primary objectives: To bring attention to animal abuse and the need to end it, to encourage individuals to take action against it, and to advocate for the humane treatment of animals (Shaheer, Carr, and Insch, 2021, p. 6). There are a variety of campaign components, all of which are designed to achieve these objectives. The first component is a website that provides information about the campaign and its goals, as well as resources for individuals who wish to take action to end animal abuse. The website features a blog with articles about animal abuse and the campaign, as well as a section where individuals can share their own animal abuse experiences.

A social media campaign is the second part of the campaign. The campaign has a solid social media presence, with a Facebook page and a Twitter account used to raise awareness of the campaign as well as its objectives. In addition to providing information on how to do so, the social media campaign encourages individuals to take action to end animal cruelty. A series of events and activities constitute the campaign’s third element. The campaign has held numerous events, such as marches, rallies, and protests, to raise awareness of animal abuse and encourage individuals to take action against it.

The campaign has also collaborated with a number of other organizations to host events and activities such as “Adopt a Shelter Pet Day” and “World Spay Day.” Education and outreach constitute the campaign’s fourth and final component. The campaign offers educational materials, such as lesson plans and teacher guides, to educate individuals about animal abuse and the need to end it. The campaign also provides outreach materials, such as posters and pamphlets, to help disseminate information about the campaign and its objectives.

Ban Animal Circuses

Animal Defenders International’s “Ban Animal Circuses” campaign is the seventh campaign I will discuss. Animal Defenders International (ADI) is a global organization fighting against the use of animals in entertainment. The organization’s headquarters are located in London, United Kingdom, and it was founded in 1990 (Jacobs et al., 2022, p. 113). Furthermore, ADI has locations in the United States, Peru, and South Africa. The global goal of ADI’s “Ban Animal Circuses” campaign is to end the use of animals in circuses. Animal circuses have been banned in a number of countries, including Bolivia, Greece, and Peru, as a result of this campaign, which has been ongoing for over two decades. The foundation of ADI’s campaign against animal circuses is the belief that circus animals are subjected to inhumane and unnatural living conditions. Animals in circuses are frequently confined in small cages or pens and forced to perform bizarre stunts.

Additionally, ADI believes circus animals are frequently subjected to physical and psychological abuse. The ‘Ban Animal Circuses’ campaign has successfully brought attention to the plight of animals in circuses, resulting in the banning of a number of animal circuses around the world (Jacobs et al., 2022, p. 115). However, the campaign has also been criticized by those who believe that banning all animal circuses is unrealistic and impossible.

Boycott Animal Cruelty

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals “Boycott Animal Cruelty” campaign will be examined as the eighth campaign. Animal rights activists have fought for decades to end the practice of animal cruelty. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals “Boycott Animal Cruelty” campaign is one of the most recent and successful campaigns (PETA). The “Boycott Animal Cruelty” campaign focuses on boycotting businesses and products implicated in animal cruelty (Shaheer, Carr, and Insch, 2022, p. 323). This includes companies that sell products derived from animals subjected to cruel treatment, such as fur products and cosmetics tested on animals. “It is possible to end the suffering of animals in experiments, but only if we work together.” (Read, 2018, p. 9). The campaign also targets businesses such as zoos and circuses that use animals for entertainment.

PETA encourages individuals to boycott these businesses in favor of cruelty-free companies. “The most common live traps used for mammals are the box trap, the cage trap, and the net trap” (Proulx, 2022, p.6). The campaign was successful in bringing attention to the problem of animal cruelty. It has also been able to influence corporate policy with some success. As a result of pressure from the “Boycott Animal Cruelty” campaign, a number of cosmetics companies have ceased testing their products on animals (Shaheer, Carr, and Insch, 2022, p. 325). Some have criticized the campaign for its emphasis on boycotting businesses rather than directly aiding animals. “Trapping can be an efficient and humane method of wildlife control when properly conducted” (Proulx, 2022, p.7). However, the campaign effectively brought attention to the issue of animal cruelty and influenced corporate policy.

Adopt, Do Not Shop

Best Friends Animal Society’s c campaign will be examined as the ninth campaign. Animal rights organization Best Friends Animal Society runs the “Adopt, Don’t Shop” campaign. “Destination boycotts are a powerful tool that can be used to effect change for animals.” (Shaheer, Carr, & Insch, 2021, p. 3). The campaign aims to bring attention to the plight of animals in shelters and encourage people to adopt animals from shelters rather than purchasing them from pet stores or breeders (Salgaonkar & Padmanabhan, 2021, p. 124). The campaign successfully brought attention to the issue of homeless animals and reduced the number of animals euthanized in shelters. In response to the increasing number of animals being euthanized in shelters, the “Adopt, Don’t Shop” campaign was started.

The campaign aims to bring attention to the plight of animals in shelters and encourage people to adopt animals from shelters rather than purchasing them from pet stores or breeders. “Twitter has become an important platform for animal welfare advocates to rally support for destination boycotts.” (Shaheer, Carr, & Insch, 2021, p. 1). The campaign successfully brought attention to the issue of homeless animals and reduced the number of animals euthanized in shelters. The “Adopt, Don’t Shop” campaign has successfully brought attention to the problem of stray animals and reduced the number of animals euthanized in shelters. Additionally, the campaign has increased the number of animals adopted from shelters.

Compassion over Killing

Compassion over Killing’s “Compassion over Killing” campaign is the tenth and final campaign I will discuss. The “Compassion over Killing” campaign is an animal rights campaign run by the compassion over the Killing organization. The campaign aims to raise awareness about the cruelty of factory farming and the necessity of treating animals with compassion. “Twitter provides a unique opportunity for activists to connect with each other and share information quickly and easily.” (Shaheer, Carr, & Insch, 2021, p. 2).

Since 1995, the campaign has successfully raised awareness of the problem of factory farming and the need for compassionate treatment of animals (Phillips, 2021, p 136). Additionally, the campaign was successful in raising funds for the organization. The campaign has utilized a variety of strategies to bring attention to the problem of factory farming and the need for compassionate animal treatment. The campaign has raised awareness of the issue through print and online advertising, public demonstrations, and lobbying (Phillips, 2021, p 137). The campaign raised awareness about factory farming and the need for compassionate animal treatment. Additionally, the campaign was successful in raising funds for the organization.

Conclusion

In general, animal rights communication initiatives have effectively drawn attention to the problems they want to solve. “As changemakers, students and teachers can work together to create positive change in the world” (Jacobs et al., 2022, p. 113). On the other hand, critics would say that their efforts have only convinced those already on board with animal rights concerns. The method of communicating the messages remains a big deal. If not well transmitted, the campaigns may receive criticism and do little good. “The changemaking process is a journey, and it is one that we can all take together” (Jacobs et al., 2022, p. 129). However, the movements are always effective for those who respect animal rights.

References List

Jacobs, G.M., Jacobs, G., Chau, M.H. and Hamzah, N.H. (2022) ‘Students and teachers as changemakers’, rEFLections, 29(1), pp.112-129. Web.

Lymber, P. (2019) Campaigning for change in the European Union. In The Meat Business. Routledge.

Munro, L. (2022) Animal rights and anti-speciesism. In The Routledge handbook of environmental movements. Routledge.

Phillips, T. (2021) Veganism and the US legal system. In The Routledge handbook of vegan studies. Routledge.

Pope, F. (2018) ‘’, Pachyderm, 59, pp.124-126. Web.

Proulx, G. (2022) The five Ws of mammal trapping. In Mammal trapping – wildlife management, animal welfare & international standards. Alpha Wildlife Publications.

Read, C.J. (2018) The Perfect Score: A campaign to stop animal testing. Web.

Salgaonkar, K. and Padmanabhan, S. (2021) ‘. In 2021 4th international conference on intelligent robotics and control engineering (IRCE)’, IEEE, pp. 120-123. Web.

Shaheer, I., Carr, N. and Insch, A. (2021) ‘Rallying support for animal welfare on Twitter: a tale of four destination boycotts’, Tourism Recreation Research, pp.1-15. Web.

Shaheer, I., Carr, N. and Insch, A (2022) ‘Spatial distribution of participation in boycott calls: A study of tourism destination boycotts associated with animal abuse’, Anatolia, 33(3), pp.323-334. Web.

Animal Rights and the Importance of Their Protection

Animal rights have been the cause of debate among many people, involving multiple supporters in this important modern issue and those who disagree with this concept. Many people tend to invalidate this concept, saying that animals do not have the same mental capabilities as humans. While this may be a valid point, the issue of animal rights is much more complicated than one might think.

In my opinion, animals certainly have rights; however, this concept differs from the concept of human rights. Human rights involve such issues as marriage, voting, adoption and many more. While some of those problems are not that much of a concern among animals, there are multiple legal and ethical issues that go hand in hand with their lives. Since animals are incapable of speaking for themselves, humans are expected to take responsibility for them, especially if said animals are their pets.

The reason why it is important is because feeling empathy towards animals could be a testament as to whether a certain person has a sense of morals or not. Those who commit violent acts towards animals or neglect them intentionally may very likely become a threat to other people. This is why animal cruelty is just as serious as interpersonal crimes are, although it may not seem to be the case at first.

In conclusion, while animals may not have the same mental and intellectual capacities as humans, it is very important to persecute any possible animal rights violations. Since animals cannot speak for themselves or represent their interests in court, it is important for humans to be a guardian figure for them. Moreover, one’s empathy towards animals could mean the difference between someone who presents a threat to society and someone who is not.

Animal Welfare vs. Rights: Compare and Contrast

Introduction

Despite being used interchangeably, the terms animal welfare and animal rights are different. One can state that the term animal rights refers to the privileges that animals should enjoy (Welfare vs. Rights). Scholars that support this school of thought argue that animals should have the same privileges as human beings (Welfare vs. Rights). On the other hand, animal welfare refers mainly to the human responsibility to ensure that all aspects of animal well-being are upheld (Welfare vs. Rights). This essay compares the two concepts in relation to animal research in medical science.

Main body

Apart from the definition, animal welfare is different from animal rights as it supports the ethical and responsible use of animals for the benefit of man (Animal Research). According to the Animal Research web page, animals are an essential part of medical research. Individuals that debate using animal rights are often against the use of animals for experimental biological studies. To convince them, I would mention some of the ground-breaking researches and studies that have been realized due to animal research. For instance, it is the use of cows in the search for a vaccine for smallpox that eradicated the disease (Animal Testing and Research).

While comparing animal rights and welfare, one also has to consider the fact that animals cannot have the same rights as human beings as the former (animal rights) recommends. Man’s complex brain has ensured their position at the apex.

Whereas human beings can reason and know what is right and wrong, animals depend purely on their instincts for survival. It is this reason that allows human beings to keep animals as pets. A person who suggests that animals should have similar rights to human beings should also not keep pets as it can be deemed ‘slavery’. Additionally, one can argue that supporters of animal rights should also be completely vegans.

Whereas one can argue that animals cannot have the same rights as humans, it is important to also point out that animal welfare ensures that animals are treated well at all times. One can state that whereas animals do not have the same complex brain as humans, they can feel pain, love, and other emotions (1). The fact that animals have feelings creates an ethical conundrum in regard to medical research. However, animal welfare ensures that the animals used in medical studies are as comfortable as possible (Butterworth 13). Many of these animals do not suffer during these experiments.

Despite the stated differences and the fact that I support animal research, it is prudent to note that scientists and researchers have a prominent responsibility towards animals. Indeed, animal research can be done on all types of animals that can enhance medical and biological research. Towards this end, scientists have to ensure that there are adequate policies to assure the dignified and ethical use of animals for medical research.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both animal rights and animal welfare aim to improve human interaction with animals for the benefit of both. However, animal welfare encourages the fact that human beings are more superior to animals. It is this superiority that should ensure that animals are not mistreated. Indeed, the use of animals in medical research has led to ground-breaking realizations. Despite this, it is important that all scientists involved in animal research adhere to policies that also protect the welfare of said animals.

Works Cited

Animal Research. AMP, 2019. Web.

Animal Testing and Research. Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2019. Web.

Butterworth, Andrew. Animal Welfare in a Changing World. CABI, 2018.

Welfare vs. Rights. Animal Welfare Council, 2019. Web.

“Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” by Tom Regan

The famous animal rights activist Tom Regan in his article Animal Rights, Human Wrongs speaks about a necessity of a radical approach towards animal rights. He states that it is necessary not to reform the way animals are exploited, but to totally abolish this exploitation.

In order to make his arguments persuasive the author widely uses ethos, logos and pathos. The examples of ethos may be found at the very beginning of the article. The author appeals to his personal experience giving many examples from his youth. For instance, he describes the life of his family after the Great Depression, when a welfare has been measured with food, which this family has been able to buy.

Regan describes the experience of his work in a butcher shop, such presents as mink hat given by him to his wife and his experience in a dissection of experimental animals during his student years.

Describing all these events of his life, Tom Regan states that he has not liked his working as a butcher as well as the animal experiments. However, like everyone else, in his young days he has not worried about moral aspects of such attitude towards animals. Later on, impressed by the war in Vietnam and by the study of Gandhi, Regan has revised his opinion.

Now Regan is famous as a philosopher and an animal rights advocate. He is an author of many books dealing with a protection of animal rights. Regan is known as a vegetarian. While describing his decision to refuse from meat, Regan appeals to logos. “I knew that my good health did not require animal flesh in my diet. So the logic was fairly obvious: the violent slaughter of animals for food was unnecessary” (Regan 3).

Moreover, Regans decision to become a vegetarian to a great extant has been predetermined by his reading of Gandhi, from which he has known that a cow is a sacred animal in India. In this country, beef eating is a deep sin. Regan states that he “feels the same way about cats and dogs” (4).

The author uses logos to emphasize a ridiculousness of this situation. What is the difference between a cat and a cow? We used to eat pork and at the same time, eating dogs is inadmissible for us. Regan states that it is a nonsense that our choice of food is predetermined by religious traditions or prejudices of any kind.

Throughout the article, Regan describes cases of a cruel attitude towards animals causing in such a way a reader to feel guilty. The author is very knowledgeable in this sphere and he vividly describes terrible conditions of animals living on farms. A factory farming is a business, which is subdued to economic benefits.

Apart from a short period of live of these animals, they are treated as “biological machines” (Regan 12). In such a way, Regan resorts to pathos exiting pity to “hogs, chickens, turkeys and other animals raised for human consumption” (12).

The author gives a particular emphasis to a trapping describing it cruelness and senselessness. Regan condemns the partiality of people for furs. Describing barbarous methods of the trapping, the author resorts to pathos trying to make a reader to feel a pain that experiences a caught animal. As Regan puts is “a physical trauma of a trapped animal has been likened to a slamming door on a finger” (16). Moreover, a suffering of a trapped animal is emphasized by its complete disorientation.

Unlike a human being, animals cannot realize what has happened. While explaining attempts of a trapped animal to escape, the author describes such terrible things as broken teeth and serious wounds. There are many cases when trapped animals “chew through the leg which is being held in the trap” (Regan 16). The author uses logos to underline the senselessness of such a rough attitude to animals. Regan states that sometimes “a fur of a trapped animal is so bloody and gnarled that it is economically useless” (15).

In order to persuade a reader Regan uses statistic data, resorting to ethos in such a way. For instance, the author quotes such organization as Friends of Animals, which estimates that (as cited in Regan) “a quarter of those animals trapped for their fur are lost to wring off” (15). Aside from its cruelty, this fact proves the senselessness of these animals killing because of their fur.

Regan strongly disagrees with a use of animals in science. He compares the living conditions of such animals with a “living hell” (Regan 19). All these animals are exposed to different laboratory experiments. The aim of these experiments is to investigate a body response on different toxic substances. Even those animals who manage to survive are killed by the further dissection for scientific purposes. It goes without saying that during the process of the experiment, test animals are suffering from various diseases.

In his article, Regan uses ethos, logos and pathos to make his arguments strong and persuasive. It must be admitted that he has succeeded in it. Regans article stimulates a reader to make efforts in order to stop violence against animals. Regans personal experience makes people to rethink many things.

Works Cited

Regan, Tom. Animal Rights, Human Wrongs. An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003. Print.

The Animal Rights and Welfare Debates

Background

The traditional attitude towards animals was based on the assertion that animals have no rights, and therefore it is not the subject of moral concerns (Bekoff & Meaney 149). Based on the traditional view, animals are valued as mere resources, and humans have the right to dispose animals in the way they see fit. Thus, animals are valued based on the context of food source, a source for raw materials, and objects of fun.

The traditional view is supported by different philosophers and schools of thought regarding the ultimate purpose of animals on this planet (Francione and Garner 2). It can be argued that the traditional view of animals is not a byproduct of complicated philosophical debates. It is the end result of a practical appreciation of the realities of life.

In a hunting-and-gathering society comprised of nomadic people, no lecture is needed to persuade tribal people to go out and hunt. Societies in the ancient world and communities living in the outer fringes of society depended on excellent animal hunting techniques to survive. There are several native societies around the world that depended on trapping animals for the purpose of food consumption and raw materials extraction in order to survive.

Philosophers from the Judeo-Christian school of thought are in agreement that animals are subservient to men. Even Greek philosopher like Aristotle pointed out that every living creature exists for the sake of mankind. After thousands of years, several people came out to challenge the status quo. One of the most prominent dissenting voice was Peter Singer who pointed out that human beings are tyrants when it comes to the way they treat animals. Singer went even further when he said that this tyrannical behavior against animals causes a great deal of pain and suffering. Singer persuaded people to stop this kind of behavior.

Singer’s philosophical stance was a popular topic of discussion among like-minded people. However, the average person did not understand the message that animal rights activists wanted to convey to them. A deeper understanding required the use of dramatic footages that showed the living conditions of animals inside commercial farming sites.

A different type of impact was created when animal rights activists no longer relied on the discussion of abstract ideas concerning animal welfare. They experienced a different type of feedback when they linked food that was served on people’s tables to the cruel treatment of animals in commercial farms. In an instant, animal right activists saw significant support from different sectors of society (Bekoff and Meaney 12). It emboldened them to declare the following goals:

  • the one hundred percent abolition of the use of animals in science experiments; and
  • the one hundred percent dissolution of commercial farming.

Those who were highly educated began to empathize with the plight of animals housed in poor living conditions. At a certain degree, the majority of the human population understood the importance to end cruelty towards animals. However, the majority believes that it is impossible to abolish the use of animals in science experiments and commercial farming. It must be pointed out that the upsurge in support also galvanized the disparate groups that opposed the radical views of animal rights activists.

Arguments: Pro and Con

It must be made clear that those who support the stance of animal rights activists must adhere to their philosophy with regards to animal welfare. The adherence to their point of view means total support to their ideas, especially when it comes to animals in science experiments and commercial farming.

Those who are against the idea of improving animal welfare in commercial farms explained their stance on the basis of the following perspectives: 1) a religious and moral framework asserting that all living creatures were created for the sake of man; and 2) in relation to human beings animals have no rights and not subject to moral concerns.

Animal rights activists based their claim on three major ideas: 1) human beings are part of the animal world, and therefore it is unacceptable for them to slaughter non-human animals; 2) animals are sentient beings, and therefore they have the capacity to feel; and 3) animals have rights and they are subject to moral concerns. Therefore, it is wrong to cause them pain and suffering.

Based on this line of reasoning, there is no justification for the existence of commercial farming, because this type of farming removes animals from their natural habitat. In addition, commercial farming forces animals to live in poor conditions. The end goal of commercial farming is not to provide a happy and carefree existence for animals in captivity, but to force these animals to produce meat, eggs, milk and other forms of raw materials for their owners.

Based on the philosophical stance of animal rights activists, experiments conducted on animals are immoral. They borrowed heavily on the ideas culled from the Civil Rights movement, principles of equality, and principles of freedom from the U.S. Constitution to bolster their claim that nonhuman animals deserve equal treatment under the rule of law.

Those who are opposed to the radical stance of animal rights activists argue from the point of view of religious, philosophical, and practical point of view. It is not uncommon to find people who quoted Bible verses to show that human beings were made lords of the earth, and therefore, they had the power to dispose living things as they see fit. This point of view shoots down the argument based on nonhuman animal rhetoric that attempts to set the human world and animal world in equal footing.

Those who opposed the view of animal rights activists find support from non-religious philosophers that established the role of human beings as the masters of the planet. Respected philosophers like Aristotle found no reason to enhance the importance or significance of animals in relation to human beings. Nevertheless, one can argue that a brilliant mind like Aristotle is not needed to state the obvious. Billions of people around the world depended on the consumption of animals products to survive.

Personal View

Citizens of the world must work together to end cruelty to animals. There exists a wealth of scientific data supporting the claim that animal maltreatment is a symptom of human depravity (Melson 171). In other words, the behavior associated to animal maltreatment creates a slippery-slope effect that leads to lower levels of violence against other living creatures. Animal maltreatment in childhood will gradually improve to violence against humans.

The assertion that there is a link between human depravity and animal maltreatment is supported by scientific evidence. For example, in one study fifty-six percent of violent offenders admitted cruelty to animals in childhood (Linzey 24). Researchers also discovered that the cycle of domestic violence started with animal cruelty. They also found out that child abuse and animal cruelty occurred in the same household.

The proponent of the study believes that when a child accepts cruelty to animals as a normal behavior, then, it is easy to transition into other forms of violent behavior. In other words, it is beneficial to teach children, and demonstrate by example the need to respect animal rights and to improve animal welfare. This type of culture and belief system promotes respect for other forms of life. Thus, it creates a pleasant mindset, and makes it harder for children to contemplate about negative actions.

It is important to eradicate all forms of cruelty to animals. However, it can be argued that commercial farming itself is not a prima facie evidence against cruelty to animals. Dairy farms and sheep farms are good examples of how to develop a symbiotic relationship with animals. Even the slaughter of animals for food consumption is not an example of cruelty to animals. According to opponents of animal rights activism, animals released into the wild are not assured of an idyllic existence. Animals in the wild are in the fight for their lives as they struggle to survive in a hostile environment. Animals in the wild die from exposure, and if they are less fortunate torn to pieces by predators.

Universal Appeal

Due to mass media communication and the proliferation of books, animal rights advocates are able to convey their message across different sectors of society. However, it can be argued that only people with high levels of literacy can appreciate the message regarding animal welfare. In the real world, people think in practical terms. Ordinary people have no time to worry about the moral rights of animals. They have no time to think about the accountability of human beings with regards to the way they treated nonhuman animals. In the real world people are starving, and they need every ounce of protein they can get from seafood to beef steak.

It is important to feed the hungry. On the other hand, it is prudent to acknowledge the growing belief among the general population that cruelty to animals is unacceptable. Thus, it is imperative to strike a balance between the need to feed billions of people all over the world, and the need to treat animals with dignity and respect.

Objections and Counter-Arguments

The proposition of animal rights activists to end commercial farming and to stop all types of scientific experiments involving animals is impractical and implausible. People are dying from hunger and many are ravaged by diseases that have no cure. It is of great importance to develop a sustainable farming system that ensures the supply of meat products to feed billions of hungry people all over the planet. It is impossible to feed 7 billon people with animals grown using free range farm techniques.

Animal rights activists will make their counter-argument by presenting facts and figures, to demonstrate the feasibility of free-range farming (Melson 188). This is the type of farming wherein animals are given the space to roam free and enjoy their existence. They will also reveal facts and figures to illustrate the needless experiments conducted on animals by the cosmetics industry (Melson 188).

Response to Objections and Counter-Arguments

Animal rights activists will offer a complex solution to end commercial farming, and that is to reduce the intake of protein-based food. This method will ensure the drastic reduction in the demand for meat products. However, this is not a feasible argument, because the bottom line argument forces people to switch to a vegetarian diet. In other words, there is no practical solution yet for the growing demand for protein-based diet. There is no end in sight for the increasing demand for seafood and meat products.

Animal rights activists find it extremely difficult to provide an alternative solution to the use of animals in validating scientific studies. In this regard, opponents of animal rights activism makes the counter-argument that without the use of animals in science experiments, the pharmaceutical companies will never be able to produce effective drugs to counter diseases and health problems worldwide.

Conclusion

It is important to end all forms of cruelty. It can be argued that animals exist to serve, and human beings must appreciate the type of service they provide. Human beings must learn to appreciate the type of service animals provide, because they provide this service to the point of death. Thus, it is not unethical or immoral to slaughter animals for food consumption. The best thing to do is to develop efficient and effective mechanisms applicable to slaughterhouses in order to reduce the pain and suffering of animals brought to slaughter.

It is also important to improve the techniques employed in commercial farms in order to reduce the suffering and pain the animals experience while they are growing. One way to solve the problem of cruelty in commercial farming is to use economic forces to compel farmers to change their ways. One strategy is to pay a premium for products that were grown organically or in free-range farm types. It is also prudent to pay higher prices for meat products produced in conditions that will get the approval of animal rights activists.

Even proponents of animal welfare will agree that there is no practical solution available to replace the highly successful model of commercial farms to produce high volumes of meat products. Thus, the best compromise is to improve the techniques employed in commercial farming. Government legislation could also force commercial farmers to think less about the profit, and use part of the revenue to improve the physical conditions of the farms.

For example, they can grow a great number of livestock or poultry in a small space; however, they are compelled to construct air-conditioned farms for this purpose. With regards to the use of animals in science experiments, one way to solve the problem is to limit experiments to drug-related experiments, and to ban experiments related to the cosmetic industry.

Works Cited

Bekoff, Marc and Carron Meaney. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.

Francione, Gary and Robert Garner. The Animal Rights Debate. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010. Print.

Linzey, Andrew. The Link between Animal Abuse and Human Violence. OR: Sussex Academic Press, 2009. Print.

Melson, Gail. Why the Wild Things Are. MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. Print.

Animal Rights Protection in the United States

Abstract

The journey of animal rights protection has been a long one. Nonetheless, the protection of animal rights is an issue that is currently given serious consideration in many parts of the world. The U.S. and the U.K. are among the pioneers of animal rights protection and currently have some of the most elaborate laws that guard against the mistreatment and abuse of animals. Numerous non-governmental organizations are involved in the fight for animal rights. They push the government, institutions, and individuals to take cognizance of animal rights. As a result, some notable steps have been made, but only in the developed world. These organizations need to extend their efforts to the developing world too so that the protection of animals becomes a global undertaking.

Animal Rights

The debate surrounding animal rights is an age-old one. However, it took longer to become a mainstream issue. Many countries across the world currently have laws that seek to protect animals, but the laws have been largely ignored or are enforced sparingly. Nonetheless, proponents of animal rights continue to make their case in favor of animals while their opponents strive to prove that animals are here to make the lives of human beings comfortable and enjoyable. This debate is unlikely to end any time soon, but the world is gradually taking cognizance of the fight for the rights of animals. Proponents of animal rights seem to be gaining ground because the developed world is increasingly becoming mindful of the conditions under which the animals they consume as the meat was raised. This trend has been common among the EU member countries and is taking shape in the U.S. as well. As these changes continue to gradually take shape, it is important to understand where the idea of animal rights came from and why it has become more important now than it was in the past.

It is important to understand that agitating for animal rights does not mean that animals should be valued more than humans beings are or that they should be treated equally with humans. Rather animal rights are meant to protect animals from exploitation and abuse by human beings. The laws that advocate animal rights make sure that the most basic and vital rights of animals are observed and respected (Grant, 2006). Since they posses their own lives and their basic interests, animals have a right to be protected. The philosophy behind animal rights is that human beings and other non-human animals should be treated almost the same way because they are almost similar (Regan, 1983).

Proponents of the idea of animal rights seek to protect them from being used for activities such as medical research, being hunted, or imprisoned in either zoos or circuses among others. Animals are entitled to their own privacy and people should not infringe on their habitats and interfere with their way of life. The fight for animal rights also entails protecting them from being used as a source of food.

History of Animal Rights Protection in the U.S.

The idea of animal rights, although having existed for many years, began to gather momentum about four decades ago. The call for animal protection and recognition dates back to early began in earnest in the 19th century when Henry Salt and Arthur Schopenhauer started the campaign to create awareness about animal rights, this saw them write the first books on animal awareness (Regan, 1983). In 1975, Peter Singer wrote Animal Liberation and unlike other writers, he argued that animals had, interests that were supposed to be protected (Grant, 2006). He is among the most considered by animal rights activists. Another great writer on animal rights is Richard Ryder who introduced and has written deeply on “speciesism.” Speciesism is the assignment of different values to animals based on their species (Sunstein, 2002).

It is important to note that although closely related, animal rights and animal welfare are two different concepts (Bousfield & Brown, 2010). While animal rights activists fight for the recognition of animal rights, animal welfare activists, on the other hand, are fight for better treatment of animals in a more “humane” manner (Animal Rights Psuedoscience, n.d.). Those who agitate for animal welfare do not mind animals being owned as property. They also have no problem with animal consumption as long as the animal is not subjected to torture during slaughter and production (Bousfield & Brown, 2010). This reasoning contradicts that of animal rights activists who believe that there is no humane way to kill an animal (Grant, 2006). Thus, the prime idea behind animal welfare is to ensure that the well-being of all animals is observed while animal rights activists are concerned with ensuring that laws that seek to protect animals are enacted and recognized.

America has advanced much in becoming a modern state that has well-defined laws on animal rights. The eighth edition of these laws contains overall animal protection legislation and related statutes for all states (Francione, 2010). These laws are quite explicit about how research labs and organizations should conduct their research activities without violating the rights of the animals. The laws also seek to protect and make ensure that dogs and cats, which are raised in kennels are healthy and well take care of. The Department of Agriculture has been tasked with the responsibility to implement these laws. It is also noteworthy that most communities in the U.S. have their law and ordinances, which seek to ensure that their animals are not subjected to unnecessary cruelty (Animal Protection Laws of the United States of America and Canada, 2013). These laws address all aspects of animal abuse and negligence. They seek to make sure that animals enjoy as many rights as they require.

The U.S. has thousands of animal rights groups. These groups have advocated the enactment of strict laws against the mistreatment animals. However, not all of them believe that animals should be accorded that all the rights that have been included in the animal protection laws. Some of the groups only fight against exploitation of animals. They oppose the usage of animals in research, using their products as raw materials in the making of leather shoes, fur coats, wool sweaters, and silk shirts among others (Francione, 2010). This position is somewhat soft compared to that of other groups that advocate for the total recognition of animal rights. They argue that humans should not engage in activities that undermine animals in any way. The implication of this position is that humans should have no hand in anything that interferes with the quality of life of animals or that, which leads to the death of animals.

In 1966, the United States signed into law the animal welfare act (Bousfield & Brown, 2010). To this day, this law remains the only piece of legislation that oversees the well-being of animals with regards to how they are used in research labs, exhibitions and transportation. However, it has been amended eight times to ensure that it captures the changes that have taken place since it was enacted. The last amendment was done in 2008 to strengthen the previous editions and make it more strict and explicit than before (Animal Protection Laws of the United States of America and Canada, 2013).

The amendment also brought about much more stiffer fines of up to $10,000 per violation, per animal, per day (Animal Rights Psuedoscience, n.d.). These tough measures were aimed at ensuring that there is total order in handling animals. However, these laws have not prevented people from mistreating animals and handling them cruelly. Thousands of animals are rescued annually (Bousfield & Brown, 2010). Most of the cases of animal mistreatment occur in rural. Government data shows a staggering number of animals being victimized and abused every year (Grant, 2006). It is believed that nearly one million animals are killed every year in connection with domestic violence or abuse (Bousfield & Brown, 2010).

With this kind of laws in place, there is no doubt that the United States is among the leading countries in the recognition and protection of animal rights in the world (Animal Rights Psuedoscience, n.d.). Having well stipulated laws on animal protection in either domestic or commercial circumstances makes it a global example on animal rights development. These laws have helped in increasing the number of pets and animals owned by Americans. For example, the number of horses has increased from six million in the 1990s to about ten million (Francione, 2010). It is also believed that the number of pets have tripled from approximate 67 million to 164 million from 1970s to 2012 (Animal Rights Psuedoscience, n.d.).

Animal Rights Protection in the U.K.

The United Kingdom was the first to enact a bill in 1822 to protect the domestic animals from exploitation (Regan, 1983). The bill stated that any one charged with harassing animals would be jailed for three months or charged a fine that does not exceed five pounds. However, there rose concerns that the bill was not well implemented. Several other Acts followed this law in the 20th century including the 1951 the Pet Animals Act, which was later amended to become more effective. In 2006, another legislation, the Animal Welfare Act, was passed to take over from the 1911 law.

The 2006 bill was a great mileage achieved by animal rights activists. It was meant to strengthen the 1911 on protection of animal protection Acts. In the new updated version, it introduced a completely new concept on pet and domestic animal owners. This law gave animals the right to proper nutrition, proper veterinary services, and outlawed the neglect of animals’ basic needs. Animal owners were expected to fully adhere to this act. It also prevented tail docking of dogs for cosmetic reasons, with an exemption of dogs used by the police and Special Forces. A person who failed in these duties was to be served with a notice of warning from the inspector. More so, animals could not be sold to children under the age of five years.

Animal Rights Movements

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals (RSPCA) is the oldest organization that was the first of its kind to be created back in 1824 in England (Regan, 2003). This means that England was among the first countries to start the fight for the recognition of animal rights. The battle for animal rights in U.K. dates back to 17th century. The treatment of animals in agriculture led to formation of animal rights groups. However, these groups were not vibrant and therefore there never achieved anything in their battles (Regan, 2003). By the end of the 19th century, increasing numbers of animals were used in scientific research and this increase saw animal rights groups opposed to it come into force. Some of the organizations formed then are still operational today.

In the first half of the 20th century, most animal rights lobby groups were largely inactive, but regained their momentum from the 1960s. This change came about with the initiation of the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA), which led to protests for the recognition of animal rights (Gharebaghi et al., 2007). HSA used a non-violence to pass their message, which made them win hearts of many. In the early 1970s, a small group broke from HSA, formed another group, and named it Hand of Mercy. However, the tactic of this new group saw two of them jailed for three years in 1974 after they set on fire Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Research laboratories near Milton Keynes among other laboratories (Nobis, 2004).

After their jail term in 1976 they were released and one of them a law student Ronnie Lee founded another organization, Animal Liberation Front (ALF) with the aim of “inflicting economic damage on those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals,” with an intention of stealing animals from farm, circuses and research centers (Nobis, 2004). However, their tactics escalated and saw the organization turn into acts of arsons. They attacked and destroyed research and academic institutes and retailers. However, this approach never ended well for Ronnie. He was arrested and charged in 1987 and was jailed for ten years.

Among the most vibrant animal rights movements is the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals (SPCA). It was formed after the first animal bill was passed in U.K in 1822. After the law failed to be effectively implemented, Richard Martin, William Wilberforce and Reverend Arthur Broome formed the Organization for Rescuing and Promoting Animal Welfare in 1824. In 1840, Queen Elizabeth gave it Royal status and it became the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals (RSPCA). The charity work has inspired the creation of countless similar groups since 1836. It is funded by donors and well-wishers.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), is another animal welfare group, which was founded in 1980 by Ingrid Newkirk Alex Pacheco. It is an American non-profit organization located in Norfolk, Virginia. “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any way” is their slogan (Animal Rights Psuedoscience, n.d.). It stands against “factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and the uses of animals in entertainment” (Rights Psuedoscience, n.d., par. 13). It also discourages “eating of meat, fishing, the killing of animals including pests” (Rights Psuedoscience, n.d., par. 13). However, this position has earned them criticism from all corners. According to PETA, they have about three million in membership and they believe they are the largest animal rights group in the world.

Animal Aid for its part was founded in 1977 by Jean Pink to fight for animal rights. It is located in Ton Bridge, England. The formation of this group was to fight against animal abuse and exploitation, which includes using animals for scientific research or using them as food. It was founded on grounds of working peacefully to ensure that they end animal cruelty. It also works hard to unmask what happens to animals in farms and the slaughterhouse. They promote consumption of an animal free diet.

Farm Animal Rights Movements (FARM) was founded by Dr. Alex Hershaft in 1976, and is located in Bethesda, Maryland. Their vision is a world where animals will be free of human exploitation. It was formed under another name, but in 1981 it became Farm Animal Reform Movement.

Friends of Animals (FOA) is another animal rights movement. It is a non-governmental organization founded by Alice Herrington in 1956. It was meant to protect dogs and cats. It works all over the world to free animals from cruelty and institutionalized exploitation. As time went by the organization grew bigger, increased its operations, and now protects wildlife, marine mammals, and zoo animals. Among its achievements is the introduction in Congress of the Research Modernization Act.

Conclusion

In conclusion, animal rights are importnat not only to the animal, but also to human beings. Living with an animal that is well taken care of is not only healthly for the animal, but also good for human health. The laws that protect them may seem tough, but for animal protection to be effective, it should also be accorded the seriousness accorded to human rights. Otherwise, it does not matter how many laws are in place because animal exploitation and abuse will still go on. The government also needs to create more facilities to protect and rehabilitate this animals.With the high number of pets in human households, it should be clear to the government that there is a need for a data collection center specifically designed for animals. This step will help in enforcing the already laid down laws that are meant to protect the animals. It will also guide and control the population of animals, especially pets. Further, it will make it easier for animal rights officers to keep track of the animals in their regions.

There is also need to ensure that animals that are meant for commercial business are seriously protected and every laid down rule is adhered to fully. This way, animals are unlikely to be subjected to torture while being taken to slaughter houses. It is also important to ensure that the rights of animals that are reared for entertainment reasons are also protected.

For proper treatment of animals, animal rights organizations should not only fight for more laws to be created, but should also enlighten the public on the need for treating animals in a humane way. For animal rights to be recognized all over the world, non-governmental organizations that have charged themselves with the responsibility of advocating animal rights should create awareness not only in one country, but in the whole world. Most undeveloped or developing countries care little about the welfare of the animals in their countries. As such, these organizations still have much to do to ensure that animal rights are protected uniformly across the globe.

References

(2013). Web.

(n.d.). Web.

Bousfield, B., & Brown, R. (2010). What is Animal Welfare? Animal Welfare, 1, 1-12.

Francione, G. (2010). Rain without thunder: The ideology of the animal rights movement. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Gharebaghi, R., Mahdavi, M. R. V., Ghasemi, H., Dibaei, A., & Heidary, F. (2007). Animal rights in Islam. AATEX, 14, 61-63.

Grant, C. (2006). The no-nonsense guide to animal rights. Oxford: New Internationalist.

Nobis, N. (2004). Carl Cohen’s ‘kind’arguments for animal rights and against human rights. Journal of applied philosophy, 21(1), 43-59.

Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Regan, T. (2003). Animal rights, human wrongs: an introduction to moral philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Sunstein, C. (2002). The rights of animals: A very short primer. SSRN Journal. Web.