Do Animals Have Rights?
Do animals have rights? Is a question many researchers have researched and aired out their view concerning animals bearing rights. Among the many researchers who have studied this is Carl Cohen who has given his view concerning animals having rights. Based on Carl Cohen’s argument I support that animals do not have rights at all the reason behind it is because the idea of rights is essentially on humans. However we have an obligation to take care of animals and not mistreat them because animals have feelings too. Thus in this essay I will thoroughly discuss the reason why animals do not have rights. Later on focus on the idea of animals having rights and why animals should have rights and lastly the moral obligations of humans when it comes to how they treat animals.
First we should get to understand the meaning of rights. According to Cohen all rights involve obligations however not all obligations arise from rights. Some obligations are as a result from commitments which are freely made from individuals. For instance one may have an obligation to put an animal out of suffering However, by the animal being rescued out of the misery does not mean they have any right to claim that it may be removed out of the misery. The idea of having rights is purely on humans, and it has brought lots of impacts in the human world. Where every individual has to respect the right of another human being. Thus animals cannot be the conveyors of rights.
In the context of human world, humans must treat animals morally while handling them however when looking at the idea of animals having rights results in some confusion. For instance a scene where a tiger eats the cub of a zebra, when its mother has gone to look for food; this raises some few questions. Does the tiger have the right to kill the cub because it is hungry? , Does the cub have right to claim the right for its life? Lastly, by the tiger eating the cub is it right or wrong and by mother zebra going to look for food for its cub is it right or wrong?. This questions may raise a lot of ideas concerning the rights of animals. According to Carl Cohen rights are of the highest moral consequence. However all animals have no idea of morals in the first place they are all unprincipled. In the animal kingdom there are no rights and they have no knowledge concerning wrong or right. Thus rights do not concern them at all. However because all human beings have the idea of what is right and wrong; they should be humane when handling animals. Despite animals not having any idea concerning rights and what is wrong and right.
Cohen further argues that animals do not have the capacity of making any moral judgement. They are not even able to exercise the moral claims or respond towards any kind of morals. The only creatures who have the ability to make any moral judgements are the creatures who can understand the idea of rules which govern others and also themselves. The only creatures in the world who have that ability are the humans. Humans live in a moral community and thus they possess and also understand their rights. Humans understand the concept of a moral world and can easily recognize the difference between their own interests and what it just and equal. This further affirm my thesis statements that animals do not have rights. Because they do not have any moral capacity and they also do not live in a community where there are rules to follow. Thus they cannot possess any rights.
However, there are some problems that arise when we defend our thesis statement that animals do not have rights. First, human beings may take advantage of that and make some animals suffer. Animals may be subjected to different forms of pain such as donkeys being forced to carry very heavy luggage on a daily basis. There are also some animals which are being seriously poached such as the hunt for elephants so that humans can get ivory. All these animals are being subjected to pain. We should get to understand that animals, like humans also feel pain. Animals have a right to live and live free from suffering. The fact that animals do not have the capacity to make any moral judgement does not mean that they should be subjected to any form of pain by the human beings. They are supposed to live in a free world where humans are not the reason why some of them are getting killed.
Also Cohen raised an objection concerning using animals in doing scientific research. Cohen brings the idea of animals having inherent value. Most rats and mice are used for many scientific researches such as finding the vaccines for diseases such as polio, malaria and HIV.Any animal that is being used for any scientific research has a value to other animals such as every humans as value to another human being. Thus any animal that has an inherent value also has a right. However, it raises some questions because human life seems to have so much value as compared to the life of an animal. Whenever a vaccine has been produced human beings are not entitled to being the tools for experiment whether the vaccine really works .This is very dangerous and it is like assuming the rights the human being has such as the right to life. However animals such as the mouse and rats should be used as experiments to the expense of using a human being. According to my views animals should only be subjected to experiments if there is a critical need such as experimenting vaccines for human diseases. By that we will have respected the idea that animals also have rights.
Even though animals have rights such as the right to live and live free from suffering there are some question that may rise. By using animals such as donkeys for human labor may be viewed as exposing animals to pain and distress. However, there are animals which help a lot in assisting human and especially in farming activities. For example oxen may help a lot in ploughing activities in the farm. Which according to most farmers is not putting the animals in any kind of pain or distress since they provide the animals with shelter and food. On the other hand, poaching elephants for ivory may be beneficial that is according to those who value the ivory. Since ivory is a source of wealth to those who value ivory they may not see any value in elephants but the ivory in elephants. Thus to them it may raise lots of questions as to why animals have right yet they less value compared to humans.
The idea of animals being used for scientific research is really controversial. Instead of using animals for scientific research they would rather use other medical advances which have been improvised. The reason behind using other medical advances is that there are many animal models used in medical experiments which yield unreliable results. Some vaccines even before they get injected in the animals they contain some errors thus when they enter in the animals they are already poison to their bodies. This is not right at all since they treat the animals like they do not have a right to life. As little as they animals such rats be and seem like they have very little importance they also feel the pain. The vaccines may be poisonous and subject them to so much pain. Instead of all that pain and misery subjected to those animals used for scientific experimentation they should instead use medical advances. These will show that they value all animals be it the small ones or the big animals.
In conclusion, I still support my idea that animals do not have rights. Animals may not have the moral capacity to know the difference what is right and wrong. The idea of laws and morals is purely on human beings. The responsibility purely lies on the how the humans treat the animals. All animals should be treated with respect. All humans should understand that animals have the right to live and live not in any kind of oppression or pressure but live freely. In the case of using animals for scientific experiments should only be allowed under specific terms and conditions. Animals are similar to humans and they are subject to feeling any kind of pain if treated in a cruel way. All animals big or small have their significance to nature and have the inherent value even though they do not have any rights.
