animal rights and society’s responsibility

Animals have been around since the beginning of time, and based on the evidence given by historians and scholars, it is possible to say that the life of animals on Earth is almost as ancient as humans. This type of entity is also known as a living organism because regardless of their scale, shape, or composition, they can perform most human-related behaviors such as speaking, eating, creating sounds, and even reproducing. However, there is a need to note that since the inception of humankind, animals have been maltreated and have been used for all sort of inhumane and abusive used and this is against the postulations of the dictates of animal rights. Their flesh is hunted for meat, their skins are converted into clothing, and their milk is served as beverages to mention a few. The above abusive activities perpetrated against animal are even lower when compared to the recent trend of animal testing carried out on animals by medical practitioners, (Strand,2014). Animal testing is a situation whereby an animal is subjected to an inhumane treatment to find out the effects and functions of a newly invented drug or medical process. Based on the above background provided of the study there is need to point out that the study is against all forms of inhumane treatments carried out on animal irrespective of the perceived benefit. Reason being that animal can feel pains, medical success is not directly proportional to the results derived from animal testing, and last good morals and religion teach us to be kind to animals. Hence the study’s thesis is developed in support of the proposition of upon society responsibility to animal rights. The research shall point out various fact and postulation in support of its thesis, and at the end, it will sum of all its ideas with a sound conclusion.

Augments Against the Adoption of Animal Rights

Based on the augmentative nature of the essay there is need also to consider certain notions held by some group of people as to the reason why animal rights should not be upheld. These groups of people have a contrary option as regarding supporting the populations of animal rights. They are of the opinion that it is believed that animals are living creatures, but they are not as complex as humans, and hence there is no need to accord a lot of attention to them. It is believed that animal can not expressly voice out there dissatisfactions hence there is no way of proofing if they are being subjected to any form of pain as a result of medical researchers and the likes. Conclusively the proposers of the notion are of the opinion that if animals are not subjected to medical tests, the medial world will not make progress regarding the development of innovative medical output. (Riffkin, 2015), There is need to point out that is study is opposed to the above opinion as proposed by this group of people hence the section below shall provide convincing details as to why such arguments must be refuted.

Augments In Support Of the Adoption of Animal Rights

Over the years the society has begun to tilt towards having a positive stand for the approval of animal rights this is based on various research revelations that have been brought to the limelight in recent times. Medical science has proved to us many times over that animal are living organism and hence that have human-related abilities. Prominent among such abilities is their perception and reaction to pain. The recent trends adopted in the medical field whereby animal are subjected and used as test tools for newly matured drugs should be discouraged. Reports have shown that during this process of drug test, animals are made to go through unimaginable pains and subjected to highest of inhumane conditions in a bid to the determine the efficacy of a drug. (Lubinski, 2004). The action should, therefore, be considered as an infringement the rights of animals. Some are injected with poisonous substances. Others are exposed to hazardous gas and result is observed in the process. There is need to note that such animals are left and monitor for days, some for weeks and others could last a couple of months. This form of hash treatment is wrong, unacceptable and must be discouraged. Animals are innocent creatures most animals are shy and would not deliberately attack humans hence subjecting them to his form of treatment is irresponsible and must be discouraged. Medical science has pointed out that the fact that pain processing mechanism in humans is similar to those present in animals hence their subjection to all forms of inhumane treatment as a result of medical testing against animal rights and must be discouraged.

Recent research by right animal experts has pointed out that there are some differences between the biological composition of animals and that of humans. Hence it is claimed that medical success is not directly proportional to animal testing. Based on the biological difference between man and animal there have been cases where animals have been subjected to a cruel test, and the result derived from such test was incompatible with the results that occurred in humans. There have been examples of times when some drugs have passed animal tests and have been massive failures resulting in enormous complications when used by people. Based on this argument there is need to point out that animal rights should be upheld since there is no total prove that after being exposed to such harsh treatments there will result in an advance in the field of medicine.

Good morals and religion teach us to be friendly and respect the rights of animals. The postulation is of utmost importance because a large proportion of individuals on earth have the notion of determining right and wrong, and most individuals have religious affiliation which develops their beliefs and the way they respond or react to certain societal and institutional issues. The adoption of good moral expects us to treat animals with respect and dignity, i.e., the provision of basic amenities for animals such as shelter food and medical care. It is expected that with the adoption of good judgment all humans are expected to love and carter of the wellbeing of animals around them. Religion also makes us understand the animals are similar creatures like human beings and hence they should be accorded as much care as possible. (Stoop, 2015). Some religion has taken animal care to another level were by animals are granted utmost level of care and attention. Based on the above postulation as propounded by region and morals there is a need for the adoption of animal rights. Adoption of animal rights will be a means of abiding the dictates of morals and religion. There is need to note these factors are regarded as the primary drives that shape human behaviors hence the adoption of animal rights as synonymous to moral and religious correctness, (Strand, 2014).

Conclusion

Animal rights have been referred to as a situation by with humans do not interfere with the lives and activities of animals and hence reducing the control, and use of animals by human begins significantly. This includes the rights to life and existence, freedom from harsh and inhumane conditions and provision of basic amenities such as food and shelter. There is need to note that over the years there have been arguments against the adoption of animal rights and such augments have been spurred by statements such as animals are nonhumans, they can interpret pain, and they are useful tools for medical experiments. However, this study proves that the adopted of the above arguments are wrong as medical science advancement is not directly proportional to animal testing. Animals are living creatures hence they have the ability to interpret and respond to pain, and last, there is need to note that good moral and religious believes reaches use to be friends with animals. Hence there is need to conclude by stating that irrespective of the position of opposed parties, animal rights should be upheld and entrenched in every society.

Reference

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (N.d.). Five Freedoms. Retrieved

from http://www.aspcapro.org/sites/pro/files/aspca_asv_five_freedoms_final_0_0.pdf

Lubinski, J. (2004). Introduction to Animal Rights. 2nd ed.

Riffkin, R. (2015). In U.S., More Say Animals Should Have Same Rights as People. Retrieved

from http://www.gallup.com/poll/183275/say-animals-rights-people.aspx

Strand, P. (2014). What is Animal Welfare and why is it important? Retrieved from

http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/what-is-animal-welfare-and-why-is-it-important#sthash.aJuh8cEy.RczXoI1s.dpbs

Stoop, B. (2015). Who is responsible for human rights? Retrieved from

http://animalfreedom.org/english/opinion/responsible.html