Pros Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis that they

are able to think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life.

Cons Human beings are infinitely more complex than any other living creatures. Their abilities to think and talk, to form social systems with rights and responsibilities, and to feel emotions are uniquely developed well beyond any other animals. It is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals, but beyond that, non-human animals do not deserve to be given rights. Ever since the publication of Charles Darwins Origin of The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other Species in 1859 we have known that human beings are animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about related by common descent to all other animals. We owe a them having rights. This sort of thinking would have duty of care to our animal cousins. absurd consequences: e.g. saying that we should respect the right to life of bacteria, or the right of the AIDS virus to move freely and without restriction, and to associate freely with other living organisms. We might wish to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all creatures to which we are distantly related have rights. We should err on the side of caution in ascribing rights to Only human beings who are members of society have human or non-human creatures. If we place high standards rights. Rights are privileges that come with certain social (such as the ability to think, speak, or even to enter into a duties and moral responsibilities. Animals are not capable social contract) on the ascription of rights there is a of entering into this sort of social contract they are danger than not only animals, but also human infants and neither moral nor immoral creatures, they are amoral. They mentally handicapped adults will be excluded from basic do not respect our rights, and they are irrational and rights. entirely instinctual. Amoral and irrational creatures have neither rights nor duties they are more like robots than people. All human beings or potential human beings (e.g. unborn children) can potentially be given rights, but o nonhuman animals fall into that category. Cruelty to animals (e.g. bull fighting, fox hunting, battery It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition hen farming) is the sign of an uncivilised society it and pleasure in the wild there is much suffering as encourages violence and barbarism in society more animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and generally. A society that respects animals and restrains compete for food and resources. Human beings have been base and violent instincts is a more civilised one. successful in this struggle for existence and do not need to feel ashamed of exploiting their position as a successful species in the evolutionary process. The basic cause of preventing exploitation of animals is Animal Rights activists are hypocrites, extremists, and not undermined by the fact that a small number of terrorists who dont even care about human life. extremists and criminals attach themselves to it. And it is Organisations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) not reasonable to expect AR campaigners not to take use terrorist tactics and death-threats; PETA are also an medicine they must look after their own health whatever extremist organisation. These AR extremists still avail way they can until a more humane sort of medicine is themselves of modern medicine, however, which could not developed. have been developed without experiments and tests on animals. Animal welfare is a reasonable concern, but talking of animal rights is a sign of extremism and irrationality.

Isn't AR hypocritical, e.g., because you don't give rights to insects or plants? Second, the factual assertion of hypocrisy is often unwarranted. In the above example, there are grounds for distinguishing between cows and plants (plants do not have a central nervous system), so the charge of hypocrisy is unjustified. One may disagree with the criteria, but assertion of such criteria nullifies the charge of hypocrisy. Finally, the charge of hypocrisy can be reduced in most cases to simple speciesism. For example, the quote above can be recast as: "It is hypocritical to assert rights for a human but not for a plant; therefore, humans cannot have rights. To escape from this reductio ad absurdum of the first quote, one must produce a crucial relevant difference between cows and humans; in other words, one must justify the speciesist assignment of rights to humans but not to cows. PETA-on testing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbT8Xw_au94&feature=player_embedded Why Animal Rights dont exist Rights are just not the sort of things animals other than people could have. Could animals have guilt, be blamed, feel regret and remorse, or apologize or anything on that order? No, and why so, that was the gist of my thesis: They are not moral agents like us, not even the great apes. If a non-human animal, however evolved, kills, maims or injures another animal of its own kind, we may lament this all we like, but to hold the perpetrator responsible just will not work. Animals are mostly instinctually driven to behave as they do, even if that may involve some slight measure of intelligence and self-awareness. What it does not involve is self-direction by means of free will, self-reflection and self-monitoring, all of what would enable them to initiate their conduct and to be morally responsible agents.