By: Tracy Pitcock

Animal Rights

Tracy Pitcock 5th Period

Two reasons why animal rights should be enforced more: animal testing and animal entertainment.

Thesis Statement

Would it be morally more permissible if you could hire someone to do the killing for you?

Animal Testing

Creatures who pay the costs of experimentation are not the one's reaping the benefits.

This clashes with morals against inflicting suffering on one creature with moral value in order to benefit some other creature.

Cont.

Although it is noble for someone to undergo a painful bone marrow transplant to save the life of a stranger, we think it would be wrong to require them to undergo that procedure.

Cont.

We assume people should not be required to sacrifice for others. Or, even if we think people should be required to make some sacrifices, most people would think it inappropriate to require the ultimate sacrifice.

Cont.

70 million mammals are expected to make the ultimate sacrifice to benefit other creatures, mostly humans.

Animal experimentation has been less valuable than researchers have led us to believe.

Cont.

Since nobody hasn’t used non-animal experimentation very often, it’s difficult to know how anyone could be confident that the benefits of animal experimentation are sufficiently greater than non-animal research programs.

Cont.

In the past researchers have used the "intact systems argument" to give reason why, in principle, only animal experimentation could yield significant biomedical phenomena about humans. But the Animal Liberation Front has prove that theory has been flawed.

Cont.

Even if we assume that non-human animals have less moral worth than do humans, most people think there are some sacrifices animals should not have to make to benefit us.

Cont.

Most people think it’s wrong for people to kill a gorilla so they can make an ashtray out of its hand or to kill an elephant so they can use its tusks for a paperweight.

That is, although most people think the gorilla has the same moral worth as a person, they assume these animals cannot be asked to give up their lives so humans can obtain some relatively insignificant benefits. The defenders of research agree.

Cont.

That is why they claim that the benefits of research are direct and substantial. They want to show that its benefits outweigh the costs to the lab animals.

Cont.

But is it right to do that to a gorilla? Is it fair that the gorilla is forced to do that for us?

Animal Entertainment

Animals are used extensively in the entertainment industry, including in circuses, zoos, exotic pet shows and much more.

Businesses that exploit animals exist to make money, so the animals' needs are usually put last.

Bears, elephants, tigers, and other animals used in circuses do not voluntarily ride bicycles, stand on their heads, balance on balls, or jump through rings of fire.

Cont.

To force them to perform these confusing and physically demanding tricks, trainers use bullhooks, whips, tight collars, muzzles, electric prods, and other painful tools of the trade.

Cont.

Cont.Animals used in rodeos, horse racing, dog-sled racing, and other cruel "sports" are forced to run for their lives. When they aren't being used in competitions, they are usually kept chained or in cages or stalls.

Those who don't "make the cut" are often casually discarded by being sent to slaughter or are destroyed. 

Cont.When they're not performing, elephants are often kept shackled by two legs, and lions, tigers, bears, primates, and other animals are forced to eat, sleep, and relieve themselves in tiny cages.

Cont.So if you decide to go to a circus, think about what they have to go through to entertain people. Do you think it’s fair to them? Do you not care? Think about if you were them.

Cont.This is why animal rights should be enforced more, because it’s wrong. It is wrong to take away animals from their natural habitat, from their families, their home.

Would you do that to a child if they were perfectly happy where they was at?

You might as well be doing it because animals are like children. They cant tell you it’s ok to kill them for our needs.

They cant tell you if they want to be trained to do tricks for humans. But they don’t have a choice, and I believe they should have a choice, don’t you?

Cont.

Citationshttp://www.peta.org/issues/Animals-In-Entertainment/default2.aspx

Nozick, Robert. "Moral Constraints and Animals."

LaFollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks. "Util-izing Animals." Journal of Applied Philosophy . 12.1 (1995): 13-25

LaFollette, Huge, and Niall Shanks. "Two Models of Models in Biomedical Research." Philosophical Quarterly . 45.179 (1995): 141-60LastFrancione, Gary. "New Atheism, Moral Realism, and Animal Rights: Some Preliminary Reflections." (2012)

LaFollette, Hughe, and Niall Shanks. "Animal Experimentation: the Legacy of Claude Bernard." International Studies in the Philosophy of Science . 8.3 (1994): 195-210