Essay Outline on Animal Rights

Animal Rights Claim/Counterclaim Essay The animal rights movement advocates for the rights of animals to be free from all types of exploration, abuse, domination, or cruelty from humans. The beginning of the movement started when the notable Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was established in 1824. This society focused on the protection of domestic animals from cruelty or maltreatment. By the 1900’s several hundred animal protection and perseverance organizations had organized throughout the states. During the 1970’s the public recognition of animal rights increased dramatically and the movement was divided into 2 major categories, animal rights and animal welfare. In the late 1980’s the World Society for the Protection of Animals, or the WSPA, extended their work to international campaigns. Ever since then the Animal rights movement has continued to become increasingly professionalized and expanded. Many animals suffer unspeakable cruelties on a daily basis, not only do they need to be protected, but they also deserve rights. Animals are living, breathing creatures just like humans, making them more than worthy for the rights that are justifiable theirs. Animal rights activists argue that all animals are sentient beings and the only reason humans are treated differently is because of speciesemen. Humans are not the species that deserve moral consideration.Rights are much more important than interests or personal morals, because rights impose a burden on others that the other parties must accept. With rights people can get real consequences for their actions and violating animals, which would help decrease animal based abuse.Ultimately, activists just want animals to have the same rights humans have to prevent them from suffering unjustly. The most common arguments against animal rights are: animals don’t think, animal’s don’t have duties, some animal’s prey on cattle, and humans are the superior species(making them deserving).The ability to think like a human is an arbitrary criterion for animal rights, supposedly animals are mental incapcated (compared to humans), making them undeserving for basic mortal prerogative. Some people are convinced that the most intellectually gifted individuals deserve to live peacefully. Another twisted argument is that animals 'don't have a purpose in life’ making them insignificant. Others attempt to argue that animals prey on crops and cattle, making them nuisance to farmers, which means that farmers have the right to shoot them. Overall these arguments do not hold any water. Personally, I agree that animals are entitled to having their own rights. Although animals currently don’t have their own personal rights, they are still subject to human laws which is completely unjust.A dog that attacks a person may be required to remain confined or may be put down because they pose as a ‘threat’. A deer that eats crops may be shot and killed by a farmer under a depredation permit. If animals can be punished under our laws then they should also have rights under those laws. Animals add to our world’s biodiversity and keep a balance that is required. By and large, all animals, creatures, and living things deserve rights that prevent them from suffering unnecessarily. If humans have the privilege to be protected through the law then animals should also have their own set of unalienable rights. Animals do have voices, but they do not have the ability to speak as humans do. As humans it should be our responsibility to project their voices and give them a sense of safety and protection.