Animal Rights

Vicki Hearne and Peter Singer view animal rights in two distinct lights.

Hearne’s definition equations: 

Animal Rights= Illogical

Animal Happiness= Conforming to expected behaviors

Pleasure and Suffering=Irrelevant

Mother Nature= Brutal life

Hypocrisy= against animal cruelty, but ignorant of mother nature

Captivity= good for animal welfare

Owner= Ultimate power holder

Owner+ happiness+ no hypocrisy + “captivity” =Good Animal life

Singer’s definition equations:

Animals=Humans

Animal Rights =Human Rights (including unalienable rights)

Animal Testing= Unethical torture= Animal Death

Speciaism=Inequality of all walks of life

Vegetarians= Wonderful

Omnivores= Animal cruelty

Euthanasia= Unnecessary Torture= Human Euthanasia

Vegetarians+ No Euthanasia+ Animal Rights+ No animal testing= Good Animal life

                

          Vicki Herane and Peter Singer both possess radical views on animal rights. Hearne believes that animals are emotionless pieces of property, whereas Singer believes that animals are the equivalent to humans. I take a moderate stance on this issue. I agree with Hearne that animals are not up to par with humans. Humans do have higher cognitive abilities. But that does not mean that we can treat animals however we like. In that respect, I agree with Singer that Animal testing and euthanasia are just socially acceptable forms of animal cruelty. Humans do not need to kill animals in order to advance the human race. And I do understand Singer’s point that euthanasia is unethical because by “taking the animal out of its suffering” is plainly killing the animal without its consent. Since these two issues are typically taboo issues, we should first limit simpler forms of cruelty; factory farming, puppy mills, and dog fighting.