ANIMAL RIGHTS AND HUMANS

Animal rights and humans

Animal rights and humans

Introduction

Human life versus animal life; this fundamental conflict of values, which was dramatized a few years ago when AIDS victims marched in support of animal research, is still raging. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has launched a campaign against Covance, Inc., a biomedical research laboratory in Vienna, Virginia, which uses animals for testing drugs.

Discussion and Analysis

It is an indisputable fact that numerous thousands of lives are kept by medical study on animals. But animal rights do not care. PETA makes this terribly clear: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." (Tongdong, 2009, 66) Such is the "humanitarianism" of activists of animal rights.

How do these supports try to support their position? As someone who has debated for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single - invalid - syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights, animals feel pain, therefore, and animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on their ability to feel pain, but it depends on your ability to think (Stephen, 1993, 87).

Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of cause and choice. There is only one fundamental right: the right of man to his own life. To reside effectively, man should use his reasonable school - which is workout by choice. The choice to think can be denied only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men - free to use their own minds to guide their decisions and actions. Rights defend men against the use of force by other men.

None of this is relevant to the animals. The animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught by psychologists). Survive through sensory-perceptual association and the pleasure-pain mechanism. You cannot reason. They will not discover a cipher of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even to attack a man.) Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they have the ability to learn any other.

Only man has the power, guided by a moral code, to meet other members of their own species, on a voluntary, rational persuasion. To claim that man use of animals is shameful is to claim that we have no right to our own inhabits and that we should sacrifice our welfare for the sake of animals that cannot think or understand the concept of morality. To bring amoral animals to a moral level higher than us - a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is appropriate to avoid causing animals suffering free. But this is not the identical as inventing a bill of rights for them - at our expense.

The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent mistake. We need not speculate on the motive, because the animal "rights" advocates ...