NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY

ADVANCED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

**********

ASSIGNMENT REPORT
Course: Introductory Ethics
Topic: Animal Rights

Group : Group 9

Members’ names : Nguyen Hoang

Nguyen Mai Anh
Nguyen Phuong Linh
Tran Quang Duy
Du Trang Linh

Class : Advanced Finance 59B

Supervisor : Dr. Nguyen Bich Ngoc

HANOI - 2020
 ABSTRACT

https://arconference.org/what-is-animal-rights

https://www.friendsofanimals.org/program/what-is-meant-by-animal-rights/

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/animal-rights

https://www.wiseoldsayings.com/animal-rights-quotes/#ixzz6GkFXOcKH
http://www.esdaw.eu/unesco.html

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Animal-Rights

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-animal-rights-127600

TABLES OF CONTENTS
 I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE CONCEPT’S OF ANIMAL TIGHTS
III. THE ETHICAL VIEW ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS
IV. ADVANTAGES OF ANIMAL RIGHTS
V. DISADVANTAGES OF ANIMAL RIGHTS
VI. IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING ANIMAL RIGHTS
VII. CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION
 1. Animals have been abused cruelty

Throughout history, animal rights has been a subject of concern and debate. The concern
in Biblical times is expressed in Proverbs 12:10: "A righteous man regardeth the life of
his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), was a forerunner in the use of the expression
"animal rights": "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way
of a whole human being."

A foremost spokesperson in modern times, Dr. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) held that
"the thinking man must oppose all cruel customs no matter how deeply rooted in tradition
or surrounded by a halo...We need a boundless ethic which will include the animals also."

The rights that both human and non-human animals have are determined by the society in
which they live. In a democratic society, it is the public that ultimately decides which
rights will be given to non-human animals. Today, our society has given them very few
rights. As a result, animals are subjected to an incredible array of abuses. Concerned
citizens and legislators trying to change the situation propose these legal rights be
extended to animals that are used or killed for human benefit. Following are some
highlight examples of animal abused.

First of all, in some cases, animals are abused as a pet. Some owner may ignore the
existence of their pet and let bad things happen to them. Sometimes, iintentional abuse
goes even further. Rather than ignore an animal and leave it to suffer, these people
commit deliberate acts of cruelty that may include physically abusing, maiming, torturing
or killing an animal. Not only do the animals need to be removed from the home, but
these people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There are too many
links between people who commit heinous crimes against animals and people who go on
to commit crimes against people to allow these crimes to go unpunished.
As for hoarding, this is often seen as the symptom of a mental health issue. While the
animals need to be removed from the home for their care and well-being and the hoarder
perhaps even forbidden to house animals again, the hoarder needs mental health help as
well. Sadly, hoarders, if left unattended and untreated, will often repeat their hoarding
behavior again, if not many times, over their lifetime.

Animals as entertainment is a second example of animal cruelty. The world is constantly

trying to invent and find new forms of entertainment, people often find pleasure in
watching animals. When thinking about how animals are used in the entertainment
industry, it seems that in most cases they are being mistreated.

These animals may be whipped or beat to get them to perform a trick. They may also be
stressed by the constant traveling and the noise or camera flashes from the audience. Some
animals in rodeos may be sent straight to the slaughterhouse after a performance. Other
things such as animal racing or fights may age an animal quickly and cause myriad health
defects and injuries.

What might seem cute or amusing to us is a terrifying reality for them. They are poked,
prodded, tied, starved, drugged, and kept in small enclosures just so “animal lovers” can
see them up close or watch them perform tricks. Humans watch in amazement from
outside the cage or arena while wild animals are trapped within, forced to perform. These
animals are stripped of their freedoms and natural behaviors for our entertainment. Most
trained acts involving predatory animals thrived (and often still do) off of the potential for
danger. Trainers would include whips and chairs in their act for dramatic effect. In order
to perform these thrilling acts, trainers would first gain dominance over the animal behind
the scenes. The most popular ways to “gain dominance” are by beating, starving,
whipping, or even pulling an animal’s teeth to reduce the likeliness of injury to the
trainer. Once television and motion pictures were introduced to the world, animals were
pushed into the spotlight in a different way. Countless movies have faced animal abuse
charges. These include The Hobbit or even Pirates of the Caribbean, etc...
Animal testing is another example of animal cruelty. These animals can be killed or
permanantly maimed through testing. These includes monkey, rabbit, dogs, mice,... Laws
and regulatory agencies worldwide currently require that medicines are tested on animals
before clinical trials on humans. Millions of animals are used in these cruel tests worldwide
every year. Approximately 202,000 animals were used in 2018 in Britain alone. This is on
top of the millions of animals used in more basic medical research.

Rabbits are the most commonly used for toxicity and safety testing of substances such as
drugs, chemicals and medical devices. They are used in skin and eye irritation studies,
such as the archaic and painful Draize tests for cosmetics, personal care, household
products and other chemicals. This controversial use of rabbits resulted in some of the
first large-scale protests against animal experimentation in the 1970s and 1980s and
pushed the scientific community to search for in vitro alternatives. A number of rabbit
models have been developed to study human diseases, the most common being
cardiovascular disease, cancer and AIDS. They have also been used as bioreactors for the
production of pharmaceutical proteins.

Rabbits or any other kind of animals used in research who are suffering from pain and
distress may display a number of signs including lack of appetite, weight loss, self-
mutilation, aggression, tremoring and/or vocalization. The oversight on scientists
engaged in animal testing is imperfect. Animals are starved, burned, blinded and go
through painful procedures without an aesthetics.

It goes without saying that animal rights can only be defended by sensible, caring people.
We have to do much more to protest the unnecessary suffering of innocent creatures.

2. Activist argues for animals rights.

Advocacy groups and humanitarians alike have long argued for the rights of animals
around the world, fighting for their right as sentient creatures to a life free of torture and
suffering. Some advocate for not using animals as food, clothing or other goods and
others such as vegans even go as far as to denounce the use of animal by-products.

The animal welfare view, which is distinguishable from the animal rights view, is that
humans can use and exploit animals as long as the animals are treated humanely and the
use is not too frivolous. To animal rights activists, the main problem with this view is that
humans do not have the right to use and exploit animals, no matter how well the animals
are treated. Buying, selling, breeding, confining, and killing animals infringe on the
animals' rights, no matter how "humanely" they are treated.
Furthermore, the idea of treating animals humanely is vague and means something
different to everyone. For instance, an egg farmer may think that there is nothing wrong
with killing male chicks by grinding them up alive to cut feeding costs versus yield. Also,
"cage-free eggs" are not as humane as the industry would have us believe. In fact, a cage-
free egg operation buys their eggs from the same hatcheries that factory farms buy from,
and those hatcheries kill the male chicks as well. 

The idea of "humane" meat also seems absurd to animal rights activists, since the animals
must be killed to obtain the meat. And for farms to be profitable, those animals are killed
as soon as they reach slaughter weight, which is still very young. 

Animal rights activism is based on the idea that animals are sentient and that speciesism
is wrong, the former of which is scientifically backed — an international panel of
neuroscientists declared in 2012 that non-human animals have consciousness — and the
latter is still hotly contested among humanitarians.

Animal rights activists argue that because animals are sentient, the only reason humans
are treated differently is speciesism, which is an arbitrary distinction based on the
incorrect belief that humans are the only species deserving of moral consideration.
Speciesism, like racism and sexism, is wrong because of animals popular in the meat
industry like cows, pigs and chickens suffer when confined, tortured and slaughtered and
there is no reason to morally distinguish between humans and non-human animals.

The reason that people have rights is to prevent unjust suffering. Similarly, the reason
that animal rights activists want animals to have rights is to prevent them from suffering
unjustly. We have animal cruelty statutes to prevent some animal suffering, although law
prohibits only the most egregious, extraordinary animal cruelty. These laws do nothing to
prevent most forms of animal exploitation, including fur, veal, and foie gras.

II. THE CONCEPT’S OF ANIMAL TIGHTS

1. Definitions of animal’s right

As animals’ right is a concept that is gaining more and more attention in today’s life. As
the animal’s right activists and organizations are developing, the definition for animals’
right also become vary. Each famous dictionaries and animal organizations defines
animals’ right quite differently, but these definitions still share the same main ideas.
Both Oxford dictionary and Cambridge dictionary give the same definition for
animal’s right which is “the rights of animals to be treated well, for example by not
being used for testing drugs or by not being hunted.”
The Animal Rights National Conference, the world's largest and longest-running animal
rights gathering which found in the U.S., is dedicated to the vision that animals have the
right to be free from all forms of human exploitation, including meat, milk, eggs, animal
experimentation, fur, hunting, zoos and circuses. The American Dietetic
Association claims that people can be perfectly healthy as vegans. People would also say
that scientific experimentation on animal, with no immediate application to human
health, is unnecessary because the suffering of the animals outweighs the satisfaction of
human curiosity. Therefore, “all of these uses of animals are frivolous.”
In the book A Vegan Ethic by Mark Hawthorne, the author expressed his idea about animal’s
right as follows: “Animal rights can be viewed in two ways. The first is animal rights as a social
movement to protect animals from exploitation and abuse. The second is the idea that animals
have the right to be treated with respect as individuals with inherent value. Every animal is
someone, not something, and they have the right to live free from humans’ inflicting pain and
suffering on them. We should grant nonhuman animals the right to not be treated as objects—the
same right we grant humans, at least in principle.”

According to Friends of Animals (FoA), a non-profit international animal advocacy

organization, ‘The crux of the idea known as animal rights is a movement to extend
moral consideration to all conscious beings. Every conscious being has interests that
should be respected. No being who is conscious of being alive should be used as a
resource or a commodity. No being should have to be useful to humanity or capable of
accepting “duties” in order to be extended moral consideration. Indeed, what other
animals need from us is being free from duties to us.’

2. The universal document that approve of animal’s right:

UNESCO - Universal Declaration of Animal Rights 17-10-1978

Considering that Life is one, all living beings having a common origin and having
diversified in the course of the evolution of the species, -
Considering that all living beings possess natural rights, and that any animal with a
nervous system has specific rights,
Considering that the contempt for, and even the simple ignorance of, these natural rights,
cause serious damage to Nature and lead men to commit crimes against animals,
Considering that the coexistence of species implies a recognition by the human species of
the right of other animal species to live,
Considering that the respect of animals by humans is inseparable from the respect of men
for each other,
It is hereby proclaimed that:

Article 1: All animals have equal rights to exist within the context of biological
equilibrium. This equality of rights does not overshadow the diversity of species and of
individuals.

Article 2: All animal life has the right to be respected.

Article 3:
1°- Animals must not be subjected to bad treatments or to cruel acts.
2°- If it is necessary to kill an animal, it must be instantaneous, painless and cause no
apprehension.
3°- A dead animal must be treated with decency.

Article 4:
1°- Wild animals have the right to live and to reproduce in freedom in their own natural
environment.
2°- The prolonged deprivation of the freedom of wild animals, hunting and fishing
practiced as a pastime, as well as any use of wild animals for reasons that are not vital,
are contrary to this fundamental right.

Article 5:
1°- Any animal which is dependent on man has the right to proper sustenance and care.
2°- It must under no circumstances be abandoned or killed unjustifiably.
3°- All forms of breeding and uses of the animal must respect the physiology and
behavior specific to the species.
4°- Exhibitions, shows and films involving animals must also respect their dignity and
must not include any violence whatsoever.

Article 6:
1°- Experiments on animals entailing physical or psychological suffering violate the
rights of animals.
2°-Replacement methods must be developed and systematically implemented.

Article 7: Any act unnecessary involving the death of an animal, and any decision
leading to such an act, constitute a crime against life.

Article 8:
1°- Any act compromising the survival of a wild species and any decision leading to such
an act are tantamount to genocide, that is to say, a crime against the species. 
2°- The massacre of wild animals, and the pollution and destruction of biotopes are acts
of genocide.

Article 9:
1°- The specific legal status of animals and their rights must be recognized by law.
2°- The protection and safety of animals must be represented at the level of
Governmental organizations.

Article 10: Educational and schooling authorities must ensure that citizens learn from
childhood to observe, understand and respect animals.

The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights was solemnly proclaimed in Paris on 15

October 1978 at the UNESCO headquarters.
The text, revised by the International League of Animal Rights in 1989, was submitted to
the UNESCO Director General in 1990 and made public that same year.

3. Confusions

The concept of animals’ right sometimes cause misunderstandings. There is a great deal
of confusion about the details and inference of “animals’ right”. The article “What Are
Animal Rights?” on Thoughtco.com, the World’s largest education resource, raises some
questions about extends of animals’ rights’ meaning.

3.1. Should Animal have The Same Rights as Humans?

There is a common misconception that animal rights activists want nonhuman animals to

have the same rights as people. The issue is not whether animals should have the same
rights as people, but whether we have a right to use and exploit them for our purposes,
however, frivolous they might be.
3.2. Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare
Animals’ right is different from animal welfare. The term "animal rights" is the belief that
humans do not have a right to use animals for our own purposes. "Animal welfare" is the
belief that humans do have a right to use animals as long as the animals are treated
humanely. "Animal welfare" may also be used describe the specialist view that certain
animals such as dogs, cats, or horses, are more deserving of protection than others (like
fish, chickens or cows). In conclusion, animal rights are more absolute than animal
welfare.

4. Famous quotes about animal’s right

I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men
such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of
men.
Leonardo da Vinci
I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole
human being.
Abraham Lincoln
One day the absurdity of the almost universal human belief in the slavery of other
animals will be palpable. We shall then have discovered our souls and become
worthier of sharing this planet with them.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its
animals are treated.     
Mahatma Gandhi

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.

Leo Tolstoy

Our task must be to free ourselves... by widening our circle of compassion to

embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.     
Albert Einstein

The love for all living creatures is the noblest attribute of man.     
Charles Darwin

III. THE ETHICAL VIEW ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS

1. Philosophical background

The proper treatment of animals is a very old question dated back to the ancient times.
The philosophers debated the place of animals in human morality.
The Pythagoreans (6th–4th century BCE) and the Neo-Platonists (3rd–6th century CE)
urged respect for animals’ interests since they believed in the transmigration of souls
between human and animal bodies. Aristotle, and later the Stoics, believed the world’s
beings are arranged hierarchically according to their complexity and perfection, with
humans occupied the highest position; and the lower forms of life’s existence are to
satisfy the needs of the higher forms in the chain. These two contrast views became the
main premises for the debating about animal’s right throughout the history.
2. Modern ethical views
3.3. Objectivism, Relativism and Emotivism
Objectivism is the doctrine that some moral norms or principles are universal, which
means those norms valid for everyone, regardless of the differences among cultures or
self-interests. Animal’s right is now strongly supported from people in the society. It also
gained the recognition of the UNESCO, a department of the United Nations, which is
proved by the above Declaration of Animal Rights. Lots of environmental organizations
were established to act for animal rights such as WWF, Friends of Animals. From these
facts, we can conclude that the universal view today is that animal rights should be
respected all over the world. Thus, the Objectivism view suggests that recognizing
animal’s right is a norm that everyone has to agree with.

Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves
of it. Moral rightness and wrongness are therefore relative to cultures: in one culture, an
action may be morally right; in another culture, it may be morally wrong. The rightness
of animal’s right, therefore, depends on cultures. Animal’s right tends to be respected
more in the countries whose cultures are advanced, while it gains almost no
considerations in the regions where cultures are still obsolete, such as in African
countries or India.

Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it.
Moral rightness and wrongness are relative not to cultures but to individuals. According
to this view, there is no universal norm that people ought to respect animal’s right. The
rightness of animal’s right depends on individual’s self-interest. It is right to a person if
that person approves of it. Also, it can be right for that person but wrong for someone
else who does not like the ideas of animal’s right.

Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions
of emotions or attitudes. The implications of this view is that animal’s right is not a moral
facts, and it is not actually good or bad. Choosing whether to respect animal’s right
totally depends on people’s emotions and attitudes towards it.

3.4. Consequentialist theories

Consequentialist moral theories say that what makes an action right is its consequences.
Specifically, the rightness of an action depends on the amount of good it produces. The
morally right action is the one that results in the most favorable balance of good over bad.
Thus, according to the Consequentialist, animal rights is right or not depends on its
consequences. We have to analyze the goods and the bad effect that animal’s right brings
about, and find out if the balance between them is favorable.

- Utilitarianism asserts that the morally right action is the one that produces the most
favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered. According to this theory,
we have to consider both good and bad effects to the society if animal’s right is
executed. Then, animal’s right can only be executed as a reasonable level,, so that the
overall benefits of the society still exceeds the bad consequences.

 Act utilitarianism says that right actions are those that directly produce the
greatest overall good, everyone considered. In this case, we just recognize
animal’s right if produce the greatest net good, and do not approve of it if the
results is not good for the mankind.
  Rule utilitarianism says that the morally right action is the one covered by a rule
that if generally followed would produce the most favorable balance of good over
evil, everyone considered. The animal’s right is now gaining more supports from
the UN, but the laws in some countries have not ratified those rights yet. So we
recognize animal’s right if produce the greatest net good, and do not approve of it
if the results is not good, but we have to follow the laws.

- Ethical egoism says that the morally right action is the one that produces the most
favorable balance of good over evil for oneself, which means in every situation the
right action is the one that advances one’s own best interests. According to this
theory, a person should support animal’s right only if his/her individual benefit
derived from it extends his/her bad effects of it.

 Act egoism suggests that only the balance of good over evils in individuals’
self-interests matter when they choose the right action. So a person should
support animal’s right if its benefit is great in his/her self-interest, and vice
versa.

 Rule egoism says that to determine the right action, you must see if an act falls
under a rule that if consistently followed would maximize your self-interest.
That means to support animal’s right or not depends on your self-interest, but
you still have to follow the rule about animal’s right. Nowadays, the laws in the
world tends to recognize and support more rights of the animals, while the
actions that harm the animals is being tighten and prohibited. Therefore, if your
self-interest is to agree with animal’s right, you may gain more support from the
laws to do such actions.

3.5. Nonconsequentialist theories

- Nonconsequentialist moral theories say that the rightness of an action does not
depend entirely on its consequences, but depends primarily, or completely, on the
nature of the action itself. To a nonconsequentialist, the primary concern is the kind of
action. So the rightness of animal’s right may varies on how the nature of the action is
judged based on different Nonconsequentialist theories.

- Kant’s theory is a theory established by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) asserting that

the morally right action is the one done in accordance with the categorical imperative.
The categorical imperative is an imperative that we should follow regardless of our
particular wants and needs; also, the principle that defines Kant’s ethical system.
Immanuel Kant was a supporter of animal’s right. One of his famous quote is that
“We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” His contention was
that cruelty to animals leads to cruelty to humans.  Thus, it is in the self-interest of
humanity to treat animals humanely, at least most of the time.  However, we have an
indirect duties to animals, and derive from our duty to respect and foster the ends of
humanity (the categorical imperative). Therefore, according to the Kant’s theory, we
should totally respect animal’s right.

- Natural law theory is the theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that
follows the dictates of nature. Therefore, to evaluate animal’s right using the Natural
law theory, we have to consider if animal’s right follows the laws of nature or not.
‘Any animal born has the right to live’ is a natural law. But at the same time, animals
have been killing and eating each other since the life on Earth began. This
phenomenal, which the biologists called the ‘food chain’, is also a natural law. If
human only exploit a proper amount of resources from animals in the wild, that law is
still obeyed. Thus, respecting animal’s right seems an action that follow the natural
law, but it is not necessary that human cannot exploit anything from animals.
- Divine command theory is the theory which states that the morally right action is the
one that following the God’s commands. So under this theory, the rightness and
wrongness of animal’s right varies depend on the beliefs and religions of the local
areas. There are religions that support animal rights while some others do not respect
animal’s right at all. For example, in Buddhism, the Buddha considers “killing any
living being is one of the sins of human”. In Christianity, animal’s right is also
mentioned in God’s commands, but at a lower level. The Bible only has some verses
about animal’s right such as "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.”
Moreover, there exists religions that worships certain animals but look down on
others, such as Hinduism. This Indian Religion worships cows and bans people from
eating beef, but does not respect other animals.

3.6. Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics is a theory of morality that makes virtue the central concern. A virtue is a
stable disposition to act and feel according to some ideal or model of excellence. Virtue is
a deeply embedded character trait that can affect actions in countless situations.
According to this theory, people have the right to choose different goals and characters
for their own “virtue”. Therefore, the rightness and wrongness of animal’s right depends
on whether people include it as a character of virtue or not. People who considers
respecting animal’s right and going vegan an “excellence” in their life may try to execute
it. On the contrary, people who follow virtue ethics but do not consider animal’s right a
part of their virtue may think that as long as they live a good life, animal rights does not
matters.

IV. ADVANTAGES OF ANIMAL RIGHTS

1. Encourage compassionate toward animals

When we talk about compassion, it’s usually towards other human beings — family,
friends, neighbors, co-workers, strangers, people out there in the world, suffering. We
talk about empathizing and understanding their suffering, and wanting to act to ease or
end the suffering. We talk about taking action, through kindness, to end the suffering in
some way. But there are some who believe in compassion towards all living things. Many
of us have pets now or have had pets in the past, and we can completely understand
compassion towards animals. Extend that empathy, compassion and kindness to all other
animals, including animals raised and killed for food, clothing, or other such uses.

Most people don’t make this connection, because food is seen as food, not a living,
feeling creature who might suffer. Most of us are very removed from this suffering in
modern life, as a whole series of steps have to be taken to get the meat (or other product)
from the living animal to our plates: raising and slaughtering the animal is done in
another part of the world, then the meat is processed, packaged, packed, shipped,
chopped, cooked, served, and what have you, depending on the food.

If we could see first-hand the conditions that these animals live in, how they’re treated,
what they’re fed and shot up with, we might feel differently. It’s not just the killing of an
animal that causes suffering but their living conditions from birth to death. Animals in
our society are treated as non-living, non-feeling objects, and yet they aren’t. They suffer,
just as we do.

Alice Walker once said: “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were
not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created
for men”

2. Motivating people to be responsible to the species

All animals thrive in their own natural habitats. In the wild, wild animals are able to
fulfill all of their physical and psychological needs by relying on their own instincts.
They are free to roam and find food, fresh water, exercises, interact and play with other
animals in their group. They are able to lead naturally happy and healthy lives.

However, throughout human civilization, people have also needed the help of animals in
our lives. Horses are used as a work animal in many societies, dogs help humans with
hunting and protecting property, cats have long been used to keep rats away from the
fields, some farm animals like chickens and cows are consumed by humans for their
protein, as well as the captive wild animals kept in places like zoos for what some groups
claim to be essential for public education purposes.

If we have been bold enough to separate these animals from their natural wild habitats,
then we have a responsibility to ensure that their physical and psychological wellbeing
are well cared for. Because however way you look at it, all animals are sentient beings
that have the capacity to feel pain and desire. Although each species carries a different
degree of pain and desire, we still owe them the same equal consideration, because after
all even for every individual human being the degree of pain and desire varies. There is
no living being exactly quite like another, and therefore it is irrational to differentiate
treatment to other living creatures based on this rationale. The responsibility that we bear
is none other than the responsibility to respect the welfare of animals.

3. Protecting animals from torment

The torment and death of animals for amusement, or for cultural reasons, should never be
acceptable. Humans watch in amazement from outside the cage or arena while wild
animals are trapped within, forced to perform. These animals are stripped of their
freedoms and natural behaviors for our entertainment. What might seem cute or amusing
to you is a terrifying reality for them. They are poked, prodded, tied, starved, drugged,
and kept in small enclosures just so “animal lovers” can see them up close or watch them
perform tricks. We see these animals on movie screens, in zoos, marine parks, rodeos,
racetracks, and circuses. We spend millions of dollars each year supporting the industries
that hold our favorite animal captive. Trainers put their heads in the mouths of lions or
ride on the backs of dolphins. The crowds erupt with joy, not realizing the hidden
cruelties they are supporting.

Keeping wild animals in captivity is usually a dangerous idea. Most wild animal-related
incidents could have been prevented if the animals were not kept as pets, performers, or
exhibitions. All too often, animals attack their trainers in circuses and other live shows.
Wild animals are unpredictable. If they are startled, stressed, or enraged by something,
there is not much a human can do to stop them from attacking. These incidents are
incredibly unfortunate for the humans involved. Unfortunately, they are just as tragic for
the animals who never asked to be put in these situations where their instincts took over.
These animals never had a chance at a normal life.

Moreover, harming and killing animals is part of many cultural traditions and religious
practices. Hindu worshippers have begun killing thousands of buffalo in what is reputed
to be the world’s biggest animal sacrifice, held every five years in a remote corner of
Nepal, despite efforts to end the bloodshed. An estimated 200,000 animals ranging from
goats to rats were butchered during the last two-day Gadhimai festival in 2014, held in
honor of the Hindu goddess of power. Many were hopeful the centuries-old tradition
would end after the temple authorities announced a ban in 2015 and Nepal’s Supreme
Court directed the government to discourage the bloodshed a year later.

Humans have been fascinated with animals for thousands of years, but that does not mean
we should hold them captive so we can observe them or watch them perform stunts.
Fortunately, people are starting to see through the lies they have been told by the
industries that exploit animals for profit. Cities, states, and countries around the world
are banning the use of animals in entertainment. Even places like Mexico City, where
animal entertainment is ingrained in their culture, are starting to move toward cruelty-free
alternatives. As more information is released about the perils of animals within the
entertainment sectors, more people will look for alternatives. Fortunately, we live in a
technological age that is ever progressing and improving. Animals are no longer needed
in movies, circuses, bull riding, or any other forms of entertainment.

4. Animal usage will be coupled with dignity

Animal research or animal testing have brought many benefits to humans, but besides the
benefits, we also need to consider the cost of those studies. From an ethical point of view,
animal experiments are considered cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society
International, animals used in experiments are often forced to eat, live in conditions of
lack of food and water, and being hurt to study the healing process. The US Department
of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2016 that 71,370 animals were injured, including
1,272 primates, 5,771 rabbits, 24,566 guinea pigs and 33,280 hamsters.

In order to ensure compliance with regulations and the continuous improvement of

animal welfare, authorities in many countries regularly conduct inspections of animal-
based research. In addition, there is a country like Australia - the country that uses the
most experimental animals in the world, after only US, Japan and China - has its own
legal code, the Animal Care and Use for Scientific Purposes. According to this code,
studies are recommended and committed to follow the principle of “3R”: Replace
animals with non-animal samples (Replacement), Reduce the number of animals
(Reduction) and Complete the Experimental procedure to minimize pain for animals
(Refinement).

Animal experiments bring out benefit for scientific research, but it require control and
purposeful use. Animals themselves also have feelings and have the right to choose to
live in a way that is endowed by nature. Therefore, the use of animals for research
purposes should be checked, considered and asked for permission before implementation.
5. Protecting species from being extinct

The health of an ecosystem is maintained by its plants and animals. When species
become endangered, it is a sign of an ecosystem’s imbalance. This balance is difficult to
maintain: the loss of one species often triggers the loss of others. When grey wolves were
hunted to near-extinction in Yellowstone National Park, beaver populations also
decreased significantly. This is because elk, without the wolf as its predator, grazed more
heavily on plants needed by beavers for winter survival. The conservation of endangered
species is important for humans as well. A well-balanced ecosystem purifies the
environment, giving us clean air to breathe, a healthy water system to support diverse
marine life, and arable land for agricultural production. It also provides us with unique
plants with medicinal properties, which serve as the foundation of our medicines. When
ecosystems fail, our own health is at risk. When protecting all the species, we are
ultimately protecting ourselves.

According to estimates of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), nearly 1550 rare
and endangered species in the Red Book are in danger of extinction or need to be
protected. However, the protection of wildlife faces many difficulties and needs the help
of everyone. Nearly a quarter of all species on Earth need to be populated and thrive in
tropical forests. However, thousands of hectares of forests are gradually shrinking due to
forest exploitation and forest fires caused by nature and humans, causing many species to
become extinct. The disappearance of many wildlife species is not only due to the
environment, but illegal hunting also makes the numbers of wildlife decrease rapidly. The
protection of wildlife plays an extremely important role in ensuring ecological balance,
increasing the sustainability of the living environment, serving agricultural production
and facilitating the development of other economic branches.

Nowadays, governments, nonprofits, international organizations, local communities, and

individuals are working together to protect and restore population levels, and drive
awareness campaigns to engage others in vital conservation work. 199 nations in the
world have signed the Convention on Biological Diversity to join hands to protect
endangered animals.

The prevention of illegal hunting and trade is urgently needed. In addition, the urgent
need is to raise people's awareness and understanding of the natural environment in
general and the protection of wildlife in particular. Student courses, ecosystem training
programs, and biodiversity management will make society more aware of the importance
of the surrounding environment. It seems we have gotten used to the incredibly diverse
natural environment that we have forgotten that wildlife also needs to be protected.

V. DISADVANTAGES OF ANIMAL RIGHTS

1. Prevents safety testing

Is it enough to save animal lives when the cost is a human life placed in danger or lost?
New products and medications that could save people but are considered harmful until
tested on certain subjects will never be used if animal testing is no longer allowed. It
would be even more immoral if test subjects used are humans themselves. This may have
been going on with clinical trials, but the only difference is that medications used in these
trials have already been tested on animals and are considered safe.
- From the FDA:

 Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products may be used to

establish product safety. In some cases, after considering available alternatives,
companies may determine that animal testing is necessary to assure the safety of a
product or ingredient.

 In all cases where animal testing is used, FDA advocates that research and testing
derive the maximum amount of useful scientific information from the minimum
 number of animals and employ the most humane methods available within the
limits of scientific capability.

 [The FDA] will continue to be a strong advocate of methodologies for the

refinement, reduction, and replacement of animal tests with alternative
methodologies that do not employ the use of animals.

- The world becomes more developed day by day thanks to the successfully done
inventions and innovations of scientists. People who are more educated strive to have a
healthy and long life and enjoy it by using all the possible opportunities. Unfortunately,
the high possibility rate of getting some serious diseases warns people and make them
find ways to prevent the further development of the illnesses. So, to develop and practice
new cures and treatments for people and to provide them with a safe life, scientists use
animals while doing their experiments. Though many environmentalists argue that it’s
not ethically right to use animals for testing purposes, as they also feel physical and
psychological pain, the only option to create effective treatments for the humans remains
it.

2. Stunt research development

Testing products on animals might be harmful to them, but many people strongly believe
that human life is more valuable than that of animals. Either way, animal experimentation
can greatly aid in research of new products and medications, speeding up developments
in the medical field.

Some people support the use of animals in testing and determining the safety of new
products and drugs on human beings, while others believe that animals should never be
used in laboratories and that there are alternative solutions to this.
Animal testing opens doors in research of new products and medication that will
significantly speed up the development in the medicine field. Drugs used to prevent and
treat cancer, HIV, diabetes, and other serious conditions have all been tested on animals
first. Animal rights put a stop on such research, risking the lives of humans in the
process.
The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical
breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using
animals. Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the
discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on
animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 27
cases in 2016. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding
and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic
fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental
in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. Chris Abee,
Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research
facility, states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,"
and says that the use of chimps is "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a
disease that kills thousands of Americans annually. If thalidomide had been properly
tested on pregnant animals, its potential for causing severe birth defects would have been
discovered before the drug became legal for human use. 

3. Reduce risk on human lives

Because products and medications are first tested on animals, no human lives will be put
in danger or lost. Exposure of humans to risky substances or possibly hazardous materials
will also be cut down, preventing diseases and other side effects. Therefore, animal
testing ultimately saves humans, even if this is at the expense of non-human animals.

In 1933, more than a dozen women were blinded and one woman died from using a
permanent mascara called Lash Lure. Lash Lure contained p-phenylenediamine, an
untested chemical. At the time, there were no regulations to ensure the safety of products.
The p-phenylenediamine caused horrific blisters, abscesses, and ulcers on the face,
eyelids, and eyes of Lash Lure users, and it led to blindness for some. In one case, the
ulcers were so severe that a woman developed a bacterial infection and died.
For cosmetic products, the FDA requires that all manufacturers prove the safety of their
products. This requirement applies to some makeups, perfumes, shampoos, soaps, hair
sprays and dyes, and shaving cream. For many years, the only way to test the safety of
products was on animals. However, during the 1980s, many alternative safety tests were
developed that did not use animals, reducing the number of animals used for cosmetic
testing by 90%. Though the number of animals used for cosmetic testing has been greatly
reduced, there are still some products like sunscreens, antidandruff shampoos, fluoride-
containing toothpastes, and anti-acne creams that cannot be proven safe without the use
of animal testing because they contain ingredients that cause a chemical change in the
body that could potentially be harmful. Without these safety tests, it would be impossible
to ensure that these products are safe for your use.

4. Blur the lines between human and animal rights

If animals are viewed as humans, distinction between the two species will be blurred.
Most opponents believe that animals do not have the same rights as humans, which
means they will never be equal. Proponents, however, would say that animals should be
free from human exploitation and cruelty, even if they are below humans in the natural
world chain.
If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies,
distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo
virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for
heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. Animal testing has also been
instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed
ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. Koalas, ravaged by an epidemic
of sexually transmitted chlamydia and now classified as endangered in some regions of
Australia, are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that slows the rate of infection
and treats early stages of the disease. The American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA) endorses animal testing. 

According to the research conducted by the Veterinary Medical Association of

California, animals share a big list of genetic and behavioral similarities with human
beings, which give scientists a chance to ascertain the amount of effectiveness of their
created treatments while doing experiments.

For example, the DNA of chimpanzees and humans has 99% similarities; mice are
genetically similar to the human beings with 98%. Moreover, the organ system of
mammals including heart, kidneys, and lungs is structured similarly with the humans’
one. So, by using all of these biological similarities scientists develop such kind of
effective forms of treatments which treat a big number of people diagnosed with breast
cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia and other serious illnesses. As can be seen,
nothing else can replace animals during the process of doing experiments and checking
the safety of drugs, just because the most similar being to the human biologically is
animal.

VI. IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING ANIMAL RIGHTS

Ever since the scientific discovery about non-human animals have consciousness in 2012,
animal rights activism has always been a hotly debated topic. While some people argue
that animals are sentient, others believe that humans are the only species deserve moral
consideration. Animal right activists oppose any mistreats of animals, including trading,
confining, breeding or killing them, no matter how "humanely" they are treated.

The problem is, treating animals humanely is vague idea and means something different
to everyone. For instance, an egg farmer may think that there is nothing wrong with
killing male chicks by grinding them up alive to cut feeding costs versus yield. Also,
"cage-free eggs" are not as humane as the industry would have us believe. In fact, a cage-
free egg operation buys their eggs from the same hatcheries that factory farms buy from,
and those hatcheries kill the male chicks as well. For whatever reason, the real question
is: Why should animals have rights?

In the book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality
does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. This is an
important distinction when talking about animal rights. People often ask if animals
should have rights, and quite simply, the answer is “Yes!” Animals surely deserve to live
their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the
reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being’s
rights, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they
suffer?’” In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital
characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for
suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher
mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same
degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and
motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their
needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account.

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value
completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with
a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a
philosophy—it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional view that all
nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has
said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a
boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves.
Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally
unacceptable. If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same
capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one
animal as a companion and the other as dinner.

VII. CONCLUSION

While there is some debate as to what basic human rights are, most people recognize that
other humans have certain fundamental rights. According to the United Nations'
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights include "the right to life, liberty
and security of person. An adequate standard of living...to seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution...to own property...freedom of opinion and
expression...to education...of thought, conscience and religion; and the right to freedom
from torture and degrading treatment, among others."

These rights are different from animal rights because we have the power to ensure that
other humans have access to food and housing, are free from torture, and can express
themselves. On the other hand, it's not in our power to ensure that every bird has a nest or
that every squirrel has an acorn. Part of animal rights is leaving the animals alone to live
their lives, without encroaching on their world or their lives.