Do Non

Non-human creatures do not have rights. A right gets defined as a valid claim that must come from a moral agent, under laws that direct both the claimant and defendants (Cohen 91). Animals cannot be said to have rights since the idea of rights is inherently human, and its foundations relate to the concept of a moral world.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Do Non-Human Animals Have Rights? specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Humans must deal with animals in a fair way, similar to how a chair cannot be said to have a dream. Besides, saying that animals have rights confuses groupings as this places them in a moral group that is only relevant to human beings. Again, animals do not have rights as God made them subordinate to human beings. This notion gets support from the Bible. In the time of creation, man became created last while other animals became created earlier. God then gave men control over all other creatures ( Regan par. 34). We can interpret this to mean that human beings have rights over animals. We can also argue that animals do not have rights, similar to human beings, because their moral stance is totally different. Contrary to the way animals feed on each other human beings behave differently. A lion may kill a zebra and no one will say that the lion does not have the right to kill the zebra, because this is how it obtains its food. This demonstrates that rights represent the greatest moral result. Besides, animals such as lions and zebras are amoral, which means that morality does not apply to them, and their acts can never be termed as wrong. Thus, no rights exist in the world of animals. While it is vital for researchers to practice humanity when handling animals, we cannot say that human beings violate their rights, since the idea of rights is not relevant to their situations. For instance, Nazi doctors used the Jews as subjects to advance their research in medicine some years a go. It is clear that this was not a moral approach as the Jews had rights that required respect. Several people think that animals have rights similar to those of the Jews, which involve protection against participation in medical research. While these people consider animals to have rights, they fail to remember that human beings also have rights that surpass those of animals.Advertising Looking for essay on ethics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More For instance, the United States reported over 50,000 polio related cases and almost 3, 000 polio related deaths in 1952 (Cohen 92). People became frightened due to this ailment, and the government called for polio vaccination among all citizens two years later. Presently, cases of polio are rare. What we need to remember here is that the polio vaccine could only be established through experimentation with animals. Malaria is also a killer disease that most researchers think that sho uld have a vaccine. While several vaccines have undergone investigation, none of them has emerged successful after trial with animals. This raises the ethical question on whether we need to protect children or animals. Medical experiments may have adverse effects when carried out using human beings, considering that they are only trials. Using children to test vaccine is awkward and results in death. Thus, we use rats and monkeys as this is the only available option. Vaccines must undergo tests, and such tests could be extremely dangerous when carried out using human beings as subjects. Thus, we do not have any other way of testing these vaccines apart from using animals. Defenders of human rights insist that animals have rights just like human children. These defenders term the act of medical scientists as morally wrong. However, they fail to recognize that unless animals get killed, medical scientists cannot advance most significant areas in medicine (Frey 97). Also, defenders of animal rights fail to recognize that animals do not have moral duties, similar to human beings. While we may consider some acts of human beings as crimes, this does not apply to animals. This is because criminal acts become determined by the moral state of mind of the offender. Similar to how an insane person cannot be said to have committed a crime, cows and rats cannot be said to commit crimes. This is because all these do not recognize moral duties that guide behaviors or consequences that follow certain actions.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Do Non-Human Animals Have Rights? specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In other words, animals cannot be incriminated as they do not have a moral state of mind that could be violated by other humans. Besides, animals do not have free will, which all moral agents must have. This becomes explained by the fact that they do not have control over their pathological impulses, wh ich makes them lack control over their actions. Hence, animals are not moral agents, and human beings do not have direct duties towards animals because they can only have such duties towards moral agents. This supports the thesis of this study that non-human creatures do not have rights. Works Cited Cohen, Carl. â€Å"Do Animals Have Rights?† Ethics and Behaviour. 7.2 (1997): 91-102. Web. Frey, Reagan. â€Å"Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals.† Journal of Medical Ethics. 7.2 (1981): 95–102. Web. Regan, Tom. Christianity and Animal Rights: The Challenge and Promise. n.d. Web. http://www.religion-online.org/article/christianity-and-animal-rights-the-challenge-and-promise/. This essay on Do Non-Human Animals Have Rights? was written and submitted by user Harrison I. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Ditchdigger daughter essays

Ditchdigger daughter essays  ¡Ã‚ °Along the young people ¡Ã‚ ¯s path ¡ In The Ditchdigger ¡Ã‚ ¯s Daughters by Yvonne S. Thornton, Thornton portrays the factors in life that young people take through writing about her family. Mr. Thornton, who starts out his family with nothing, raises a total of six children successfully. He works two full-time jobs both day and night to support his family. Though possessing an unusual manner of teaching and guiding his daughters, Thornton nevertheless succeeds. Yvonne, Thornton ¡Ã‚ ¯s third daughter, becomes a doctor. After establishing her career, Yvonne writes the book The Ditchdigger ¡Ã‚ ¯s Daughters. According to Mr. Thornton,  ¡Ã‚ °When you ¡Ã‚ ¯re grown, this society is gonna look at you as an ugly black female...But you are not light, so studyin ¡Ã‚ ¯ is the only way I can see you gettin ¡Ã‚ ¯ ahead of this ¡(34). The conversation between Mr. Thornton and his daughters takes place in this quote. As a result of his daughters being black females, Thornton believes that the daughters have to study in order to reach their goals. Mr. Thornton aids in Yvonne becoming a doctor. From The Ditchdigger ¡Ã‚ ¯s Daughters, the reader learns that there are three factors that affect the path to which young people take in life. One of the factors is that there was prejudice in the 1950 ¡Ã‚ ¯s. The Thornton family is black, which causes them to experience prejudice. Mr. Thornton has one job as a ditchdigger for a day and one more job for the night. Yet he has six children including one child that he adopts. From this background of the family, his daughters receive pressure that they have to be successful when they grow up. Their grades from school proves that they worked hard by receiving all A ¡Ã‚ ¯s. Because they spend most of their time on doing homework and studying, the daughters find playing musical instruments as hobbies. By taking lessons from professionals, they show talent through music. Further on in the novel, the daughters c...