Animal Rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Animal Rights - Essay Example It is important to consider in a critical fashion whether they have substantially offered a clear point to convince us of what they claim that we have moral or ethical responsibilities towards animals and that we need to shift to vegetarianism. Michael Pollan essentially believes that we have moral or ethical responsibilities towards animals. This evident in his point of view when he tries to argue that it is just fine to consume meat from animals for as long as humans must implement the entire process with consciousness, ceremony and respect that these concerned animals deserve (Pollan). In other words, Polan believes that animals have certain rights as well, knowing that his point reveals the fundamental treatment that animals may potentially deserve even if they are the kind solely intended for human consumption. Pollan is trying to imply that animals which might be primarily meant for meat on the table are still deserving of the appropriate treatment from humans. If there is what we call a humane treatment for humans, Pollan is trying to suggest a significant and similar action as counterpart on animals. This makes him a not so conservative advocate as far as the claim against animal consumption is concerned, but his points will give us enough understanding that humans have essential moral or ethical obligations towards animals. However, Pollan’s point is not so strong to lead us to a vegetarian lifestyle. On the contrary, Tom Regan is so strong with his sheer stand, that just like humans, animals have positive interests too. He remarkably creates a more philosophical argument in this claim, by defining what it means to be human, linking it to the point of defining human interest at its broadest term. One of his remarkable examples that is compelling and worthy of a response is the point that infants are humans too, but if being able to express through words might prove humans to have that positive interests they deserve, then infants who are not cap able of using words might turn out to be like animals too that based on the human standards, are not able to use words, logic and higher form of thinking (Regan). Therefore, it is not safe to argue that expression is such a fundamental basis of the human right and the thing that makes individuals superior to animals. Even though animals are not able to express, but Regan believes that they too also have corresponding rights just as what infants deserve. Regan therefore is trying to emphasize the point that animals have the basic right to survive, which is technically the essence of their positive interests. Unlike Pollan, Regan is more serious in his view to promote the idea that animals’ interests should prevail, implying therefore that vegetarianism is the right way to take for the humanity. â€Å"The question of the obligatoriness of vegetarianism, in other words, can arise only if and when the animals we eat are the kind of beings who have interests† (Regan). Final ly, just like Regan, Harriet Schleifer provides some remarkable arguments in order to convince the humanity that killing animals for our consumption is unethical. Schleifer has the same idea with Regan, acknowledging the thought that animals have the basic right they deserve, and that is the right to have their lives. In