Abstract

In this paper, we try to explore the concept of Animals Rights and the Theory behind this concept. The concept of animal rights is actually based on the belief that nonhuman animals have interests and rights similar, and in some cases equal, to those of humans. As such, the animal rights movement seeks to include nonhuman animals in the so-called moral community that humans belong to, by encouraging others to respect their basic interests as they would be the interests of a human. In practical terms, the adoption of animal rights into legislation would mean that nonhuman animals could not be used for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Opponents of animal rights argue that animals lack both the mental and moral capacity to be granted even the most basic rights. Animal rights were granted to animals to set limitations due to human behavior.

Finally, the paper concluded with the recommendation that animal rights organizations problematic the injustice and exploitation inherent in growing someone for food, complemented by promoting values of freedom, life, respect, compassion, health, and environmental responsibility. A post humanist path to sowing the seeds of justice will rely on convincing humans not only to respect the sentience and individuality of other animals, in all their splendid diversity, but also to respect the animality in them and envision a more cooperative place for the human animal in the natural world.

Animal Rights

Introduction

The modern animal rights movement seeks a "deconstruction" of the human/ animal dualism, transforming society to a non specialist worldview that conceives of other animals as inherently valuable beings with interests that deserve respect, just as humans claim to respect each other as subjects, not objects. While animal rights incorporate concerns about animal welfare based on sentience, there are important differences in how the two viewpoints view humans in relation to other animals. Animal rights can be defined as a "deontological" ethic that grants nonhuman animals the right to privacy and freedom from human intrusion, seeking an end to the domestication, enslavement, exploitation, and property status of nonhuman animals (Singer, p 7).

To diminish the humanism inherent in the rights approach, we propose that animal rights organizations' rhetoric should increase humans' connection with their own animalists and nature by ensuring that moral messages avoid humanist appeals to a purely “humane” or anthropocentric notion of civilization and ethics. It is believed that animal rights organizations must acknowledge that social nonhuman animal cultures have their own ethical systems, often following nature's tendencies toward moderation and necessary harm and avoiding human tendencies toward excessive harm and consumption.

By the same kind of reasons, the concept of "inherent dignity" is not acceptable as a legal basis for animal rights. At best, this concept can be applied in the case of rare species of animals, in the sense of, "This part of nature should be protected, as there is found the animals, which is not found anywhere else." In all other cases, this concept does not mean anything. Thus, not a single farmer cannot get better ...