Introduction
Animal rights are views or arguments with moral grounds aimed to determine if animals deserve the right to be free from exploitation, similarly to people. Millions of animals continue to suffer and are killed every year by people for the sake of satisfying various desires. The animals are reared or farmed to be killed later for the purpose of producing food or clothing. Moreover, animals are used for entertainment in activities such as circuses, bullfights, and hunting or for laboratory reasons like animal experimentation, showing evidence of animal exploitation for unnecessary reasons that can be easily avoided. Misuse of animal life for human benefit has garnered diverse opinions on whether animals should have rights for protection, which has called for a shift to cell cultures and human tissues instead of animal experimentation.
Supporting Views Against Animal Use and Exploitation
Human beings share the universe with other animals, which to some degree, are considered to as intelligent and self-aware. These animals find themselves in a competitive world, just like people. They are forced to satisfy basic living tasks such as feeding themselves while dealing with dangers accompanied by doing these things (Korsgaard 19). Even with these challenges, human beings continue to force animals to work for them, do experiments on them, raise them for food and clothing, and even exploit them for the mere reason of amusement.
Following the above factors, animal rights activists hold the belief based on the rejection of speciesism and the view that animals have sentience. The concept infers that animals have the ability to suffer (Sherry 19). Therefore, sentience means that dogs or cats feel pain compared to a kitchen table or even a chair. For this reason, activists seek to differentiate animals from inanimate objects, which are mostly regarded as exploitative industries as well as the law. The animal rights movements strive to inform the general public that animals are indeed intelligent, emotional, and sensitive beings who should be given respect and dignity. Therefore, the advocates argue that animals should be reserved the right to live freely as they wish without exploitation and use by humans.
Animal rights advocates argue that humans can survive without eggs, meat, fur, wool, and hunting, all of which exploit animals. These activists claim people can perfectly live healthily just by being vegans (Khoo, 2018). In addition, they maintain that animal testing, especially with cosmetics, such as lipstick, does not qualify to be a motive to maim and kill hundreds of animals. Furthermore, they continue to reason that using animals for scientific research with no urgent application to human beings is needless. Moreover, animal rights activists place an argument that the suffering experienced by animals prevails over satisfying human curiosity (Francione and Garner 5). Therefore, although animal experiments contribute to human medical advancements, they cannot be justified morally, just as they would not when done on babies or mental patients.
Moreover, animal rights advocates continue to argue that the use of animals in experiments is mostly ineffective. Activists argue animals are not naturally affected by the illnesses humans have, including HIV, schizophrenia, and major types of cancer. To overcome this limitation, the symptoms of these conditions have to be artificially replicated in animals artificially in laboratories. Nonetheless, such procedures demean the intensity of human diseases, which are largely influenced by various variables like socioeconomic factors, genetics, and psychosocial issues. For these reasons, it becomes challenging to find a treatment that is effective in humans despite showing significant promise and progress in animals (Pound and Ritskes-Hoitinga 3). Consequently, animal lives end up being wasted, accompanied by pain and suffering for no significant reason.
Arguments that support animal rights are mostly based on the utilitarian theory, which explains how individuals ought to treat nonhuman animals. The theory states that people should take into consideration every sentient being without limitation only to human beings (Sherry 12). Consequently, the theory suggests that the factor of speciesism should be rejected, which helps minimize prejudice against ones that do not belong to a particular species. Thus, the theory supports the elimination of animal exploitation by arguing that causing harm to other nonhuman animals outweighs the benefits this provides. In addition, the utilitarian theory infers that human beings should take into account what happens to beings living in the current time as well as ones in the future. Therefore, this implies that people should be concerned with reducing the harm and suffering directed at animals.
Justifications for Human Exploitation
However, other individuals hold the belief that rights cannot be given based on the ability to think, as it would mean undergoing intelligence tests to help establish if they deserve to be given rights. Therefore, this would indicate that mentally ill and disabled individuals, as well as babies, would not have rights. Korsgaard (25) claims that human beings possess a property that gives moral standing, which animals do not have hence qualifying as a vital way of differentiating the two. Thus, one would argue that human beings hold no obligation toward other animals.
Various liberal societies provide a wide range of rights, such as freedom of conscience, assembly, and speech which are all meant to protect human autonomy and the will to live pursuant to their values. For this reason, it is not necessary for people to concern themselves with procuring similar rights to other animals since their lives conform to their natures, not values (Francione and Garner 113). Therefore, this would mean that animals do not possess the kind of autonomy that would warrant protection by such rights.
The Kantian theory emphasizes the importance of autonomy in determining the morality of actions. The theory explains that morally acceptable deeds are ones that can be willed by logical persons in any given circumstance. As much as animals and human beings have wants that can force them to take action, it is only the latter that has the capability of withdrawing from their desires and having a choice on what to do. Therefore, since animals do not have this ability, they are not autonomous as they lack a will, which means they have no intrinsic value (Francione and Garner 113). Thus, one would argue that it is justifiable to exploit animals for the benefits gained by human beings.
Furthermore, there is an argument that humans have unique obligations toward other individuals, which they do not contain to animals. Some individuals argue that animals do not actively participate in community duties as humans do. Therefore, a claim arises that human beings are then only required to continue protecting their interests and not that of animals (Sherry 23). Consequently, since animals do not have community duties, their interests can be sacrificed and exploited in ways that are beneficial to the human race.
Moreover, other individuals base their arguments on cartesian theories, which state that animals do not need any direct concern as they are not conscious. Sanga (121) claims that animals have no well-being or interest in considering the consequences of human actions. Therefore, some people hold the belief that human beings would be forced to take into account animal interests as a significant aspect in evaluating actions that would affect them if they were conscious. However, since they lack in this sense, nothing exists that can be used to assess human decisions towards animal use which justifies their use for human benefit.
Solutions or Alternatives that Minimize Animal Exploitation
Animals play a vital role in the human race communities, and stopping animal testing does not translate to risking human lives or stopping medical progress. Various alternatives can be used instead of animals in scientific research, including cell cultures and human tissues, all of which help reduce animal exploitation. Cell cultures involve the creation of almost every type of animal and human cells in the laboratory and have enhanced vital accomplishments in kidney diseases, cancers, and sepsis (Bédard et al. 4). Moreover, other advancements have also been made in growing cells as 3D structures including human organs that provide a more effective way to perform new therapies. Therefore, advancements in cell cultures can be used to effectively conduct studies on drug metabolism as well as disease and biological processes.
On the other hand, human tissues are offered by human volunteers to help give a more appropriate means of studying diseases and human biology rather than using animal testing. For instance, eye as well as skin models developed from reconstructed human tissues and skin are replacing rabbit irritation which in turn has helped reduce animal suffering. Additionally, human tissues, such as brain tissue, are used after an individual dies (Taylor 586). Thus, research with human tissues has helped promote a better understanding of brain regeneration as well as the effects of Parkinson’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the issue of animal rights has gained diverse opinions on how animals ought to be treated and how their exploitation can be reduced with cell cultures and human tissue replacements. On the one hand, animal rights activists argue that animals are intelligent, self-aware, and sentient and hence should be given a chance to live free from pain and suffering as a result of human exploitation.
In addition, they argue that human beings can survive as vegans without animal products such as milk or eggs. Animal rights advocates claim that animal testing, both in cosmetics and scientific research is unnecessary as animals do not meet the standards of human physiology and hence do not contribute to effective accomplishments in this field. The support for animal rights has been enhanced by the utilitarian theory, which is based on the view of rejecting speciesism, which helps minimize prejudice against ones that do not belong to a particular species.
On the other hand, there are arguments that do not support animal rights where some individuals believe that animals lack the ability to think; hence humans have no obligation toward these beings. Others argue that animals do not have the kind of autonomy that would require rights for protection from exploitation. The Kantian theory supports the perception that animals do not have autonomy, meaning that they do not have the will to protect their interests hence should only be used for human benefit. Moreover, it has been argued that animals are not active members of society, indicating they can be used for human benefit.
Furthermore, views based on cartesian theories state that animals are not conscious beings, signifying that humans can use them to their own benefit. The solution to reducing animal exploitation is the shift to using cell cultures and human tissues instead of animal testing. These methods provide effective and quality ways that are more compatible with human physiology, which enhances scientific advancements.
Works Cited
Bédard, Patrick, et al. “Innovative Human Three-Dimensional Tissue-Engineered Models as an Alternative to Animal Testing.” Bioengineering, vol. 7, no. 3, 2020, pp. 1–40. Web.
Francione, Gary, and Robert Garner. The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? Columbia University Press, 2010.
Khoo, Shaun. “Justifiability and Animal Research in Health: Can Democratization Help Resolve Difficulties?” Animals, vol. 8, no. 2, 2018, pp. 1–12. Web.
Korsgaard, Christine. Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Pound, Pandora, and Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga. “Is it Possible to Overcome Issues of External Validity in Preclinical Animal Research? Why Most Animal Models Are Bound to Fail.” Journal of Translational Medicine, vol. 16, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1–8. Web.
Sanga, Innocent. “Animal Rights: A Philosophical Evaluation.” East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences, vol. 2, no. 4, 2021, pp. 119–124. Web.
Sherry, Clifford. Animal Rights a Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO, 2009.
Taylor, Katy. “Recent Developments in Alternative Developments in Alternatives to Animal Testing.” Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change. Brill, 2019, pp. 585–609.