Although animal rights were pointed out by international laws, animals,who can not look for their rights in courts, are been treathing out of respect even in 21th century. Especially animal lovers are against some of the issues like using animals in science, animal agriculture and sport hunting. What matters in the relationship between animals and humans, power or respect is the main subject of the discussions. There are many people who are volunteers to defend animal rights. Panther Emel is one of the famous defender of animal rights in Turkey. To make people think about animals, Emel has done many interesting activities. We have to think about not only pets, but also agricultural animals and their conditions. Is it moral to give life to a chick, feed it to grow up and kill back after 40 days to sell? In the article of Tom Regan (The Case for Animal Rights) contractarianism, utilitarianism and indirect duty view are main perspectives, which violates animal rights. On the other hand, inherent value is the term, which have to be mentioned to understand why animals have equal rights with human beings. Contractarianism is an idea that, a contract only affects the people who can read and understand the terms in contract. Utilitarianism includes two parts. The first ideology of utilitarianism is that "everyone's interest count and similar interests must be counted as having similar weight or importance"(Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, 5,2000). The second ideology is although a behavior damages something; this behavior can be acceptable if it brings more welfare totally. Indirect duty view supports that an attitude that harms a living thing is matters, not the way of harm. Therefore the affected things, which can be animal in this case, are not cared. Inherent value is the concept that each living thing has a value from birth. Contractarianism, utilitarianism and indirect duty view violates the animal rights, because they are not equal respect based, however inherent value is the main term, which points out animal deserve same respect and rights as humans.
Separation of living things into two parts as who can understand and not understand is out of respect. Animals can not be a part of a contract because they obviously can not understand the terms in contract. The base contractarianism is expediency of human beings. Why? Contractarianism is very useful for some cases. There are many cases in USA courts about easy things. For instance, a person can want amends from a company after he/she washes his/her cat in washing machine, because there is no sign to show it is dangerous. This example shows expediency of human beings that is taking money from a company. In these kinds of issues, contracts are normal and needed. What is the point of the supporter of this theory? Contracts enforce to obey the rules of contract; therefore, there is no cheating in contractarianism. Rights can be claimed when a contract is sign. As a result contractarianism gives protection and that is why people support contractarianism. Although children, mentally ill people and some animals in special cases are included for contractarianism, these are not enough. All animals deserve rights and this is not an easy topic to see signing or not signing a contract.
Both parts of utilitarianism do not show respect, because firstly neither humans nor animals have worth as a living thing, this theory only cares about the interests; secondly it is also not acceptable for the view of total welfare of a group, because one part is damaged consequently. The definition egalitarianism is a good definition for equality. However this equality does not include the living things. "Everyone's interests count and count as much as the like interests of anyone else."(Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights,5) indicates what is seen as valuable by supporters of this theory. By this thought many problems such as sexual discrimination, religious discrimination and animal case can be solved. Americans' or Turkishs, riches or poors, animals' or humans' each living things' interests and feelings are cared. It is have to thought that has more importance, our interest or we. Utilitarianism does not show respect to us, which is wrong, because we have no value in this theory. On the other hand, the thought of total welfare matters can not be seen acceptable in some cases. A way of goodness can not pass from the way of evil. It is easy to understand that this thought is wrong. Just think that you are harmed to make some other people happy. A high percentage of people do not accept this. For instance, stealing exam papers make students happy, but the successful student can not take the place that he/she deserves. The exam can not see the real result; teacher can not see how he/she must go on the teaching system etc. It is similar for animals' case, when animals are used for scientific experiments many people can have benefits. Although it seems okay for human beings, it is needed to see the other side of the coin. Humans have no right to harm animals for even whole humanity's welfare. It does not matter cosmetic experiment or cancer experiment. For instance, an animal does not deserve to be dead by poisons that are tested. These animals are not asked to be guinea pigs. Finally, living things are important personally not only for their interests but also for their inborn values, also spirit of an animal is more valuable from welfare of humanity.
Indirect duty view does not show respect, because it supports we have no duty to animals and they are human's property. Indirect duty view considers the process but the consequences of the behavior. It is wrong because the property that is affected by a behavior does not have any importance in this case. Also as animals are seen as a property of humans animals have no value for this theory. For example, if your neighbour kicked your dog. Because it upsets you, it is wrong to you indirectly. What your dog feels does not matter, what matters is whether it affects you or not. If it upsets you, that is the problem. It is not to be forgotten that God creates animals and if they were unimportant they would not be a part of nature. Scientist proved how important they are for natural balance. This view shows that we can nothing to wrongs animals, but this is out of the boundaries of respect and this shows that the value of animals could not be understood yet.
Rights view basically comes from the importance of inherent value. Inherent value comes from birth. When spirit is put in a body, this living thing automatically has some inherent values. This living thing waits and wants respect. Even animals are not cared, God must be cared. God gives the spirit and only God can take it back. This thought supports abolition of the use of animals in science, commercial animal agriculture and sport hunting. Being intelligent, powerful or whatever does not give humans more inherent values. It is chance or it is the choice of God to birth as an American child, Iraqi child or a baby of a lion. Many people are against the capitalism that has a relationship with inherent values. For instance, it is not fair that a Chinese child works in a factory and an American child plays with computer. There is such a difference because of some reasons such as, political success or being hardworking of American child's grandparents. Because of their situation or because of chance, one of is much happy and has much right than other. The point is although they have equal inherent values, they are not equal in the life. If capitalist circumstances are not accepted, violation of animal rights must not be accepted. The base of solution is to understand we are equal by inherent values and we both deserve respect.
To sum up; animal rights have to be cared more than it cares now. Animals' circumstances must be seen objectively and empathy is a good way to understand animal rights. The application you do not deserve or want must not be thought acceptable for animals' cases. It is the base of equality and happiness of everybody. If you do not want to be out of contract and lack of rights in contract, do not accept contractarianism. If you do no want to be harmed for some one's welfare and feel important personally, do not accept utilitarianism. If you do not see yourself as a property of somebody and feel important for Earth, do not accept indirect duty view. If rights' view applies all over the world, each individual living thing will gain the importance and respect he/she/it deserves. As a chain, birth brings spirit, spirit brings inherent values and inherent values bring rights. Power and intelligence do not matter for rights' issue. For instance, the rights are given to human because only they are human. Do all humans have same intelligence or power? No. Therefore, it shows that inherent values are cared for humans. Why do not humans accept same thing for animals? The solution occurs if and only if humans and animal rights are compared objectively. As humans have power and intelligence, they do not want to look this issue equally. It can be seen obviously humans and animals are equal by inherent values and inherent values are the only thing that we have to care for.
Greetings!
You make some very good points in your essay! Because of its length, I can't edit all the grammar, but I will give you some tips:
Although animal rights have been upheld by international laws, animals, who cannot look out for their rights in courts, are being treated with a lack of respect, even in the 21st century.
To make people think about animals, Emel has done many interesting activities. We have to think about not only pets, but also agricultural animals and their conditions. - It's really not enough to say Emel has done some interesting things; if you are going to mention him, and especially his "interesting activities," you need to tell what was interesting about them. The next sentence which follow, really does not flow logically from the sentence about Emel; it's too abrupt of a jump in ideas.
Indirect duty view supports that an attitude that harms a living thing is what matters, not the way it is harmed. Therefore the affected things, such as animal in this case, are not cared. - The phrase "are not cared" does not make sense; I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to say.
To sum up, animal rights have to be cared more than it cares now. - This time, I think I know what you were trying to say! :-) Try saying it this way: "To sum up, animal rights must be given more attention than they are now."
Therefore, it shows that inherent values are cared for humans. - The phrase "cared for" is a bit confusing. I find it difficult to rewrite this for you, because I'm not sure who is supposed to be doing the "caring." Perhaps you meant that inherent values matter to humans? Or should matter?
I know that learning a foreign language is a big challenge! You might want to see if your university has a writing lab where you could get some help with your English, and some more in-depth editing.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks,
Sarah, EssayForum.com
