| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "ANIMAL RIGHTS": |
|
|
Science and Technology in Animal Rights Literature, 2005.
Examines representations of science, scientists and technology within the animal rights movement, analyzing animal rights literature.
8,000 words (approx. 32.0 pages), 45 sources, APA, $ 172.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the animal rights movement as presented in literature published by animal rights activists. It first presents the negative attitudes within the animal rights movement towards science and scientists. Next, it examines the animal rights movement's position in society in order to show how this movement is infiltrating the current paradigm of both scientific and lay society. The paper then examines each of the three areas of animal experimentation (biomedical research, product testing, and education). Surveying each of these three, the paper presents the argument posed by the animal rights activists against the use of animals and then presents examples of scientific and technological alternatives currently in use.
Paper Outline:
Introduction
Negative Attitudes Towards Science and Scientists
Animal Rights in Society
Biomedical Research
Product Testing
Education
Conclusion
Bibliography
From the Paper
"Pressures to accelerate legislation concerning the use of animals in scientific experimentation have resulted in legislative mandates under discussion in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Bills introduced in both 1988 and 1989 (known as the Consumer Products Safety Testing Act) would require Federal agencies to promulgate regulations specifying that non-animal tests be used whenever possible. When specific non-animal alternatives are found to be less valid, agencies would be required to publish explanations and justifications of continued animal use."
| |
|
Animal Rights: A Humanist Perspective, 2002.
Attempts to address the issue of animal rights by asking the question, from a humanistic perspective, "what potential exists for a healthy construct of the rights of animals?"
2,439 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper briefly looks at the evolution of the Western world's views on the treatment of animals and how the lack of a agreement on what an animal precisely is causes difficulties in addressing the issue of animal rights. It goes on to present a debate on the issue of animal rights through three different perspectives: ethical relativism, utilitarianism, and ethical egoism.
Sentient Rights in a Solitary World
The Essential Problem of the Definitions
Framework of the Debate within this Context
Taking A Position -- Modified Personal Responsibility
Ethical Traditions Within The Framework
Summary
From the Paper
"In recent years, the ethical issue of animal rights has seriously entered into the realm of philosophical debate. This in itself shows a change in perspective, for until relatively recently the issue was not even seriously broached by philosophers, save maybe in sport or to highlight the absurdity of a line of reasoning. However, increasingly within modern philosophy, the issue may be broached. While one would think that the demands of such philosophies as egoism and utilitarianism would subjugate the position of animals, it seems historically that the reverse has somewhat been true. The question then becomes, within a humanistic mind-set, what potential exists for a healthy construct of the rights of animals? The answer lies in comprehending the individual focus of these philosophies, and treating this issue not as one of social or legal mandate, but as one of personal cognizance."
| |
|
Animal Rights, 2007.
This paper explores the subject of animal rights and looks at the debate over animal experimentation.
909 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer explains that the nature of animal rights necessarily converges upon the modern debate of animal experimentation. After all, the writer points out, if it is morally acceptable to experiment upon animals, then one has said something important about the extent to which non-humans can have rights within society. Additionally, the writer notes that one can make further claims as to the type of experiments that are morally justifiable and precisely which animals may be afforded any rights. Overall, the writer maintains that the case for animal rights must center upon what types of organisms can reasonably be protected under the law -- if they can voluntarily act under the confines of law.
From the Paper
"First, it must be established that human societies have been formed for the mutual advantages of those within them. Each person, as a member of society, is required to contribute something to its overall functioning, and in doing this, they are allowed to receive the contributions of others. So, the criterion for becoming a legal member of a society is that you are able to freely choose to make a contribution or not. So, despite the observation that animals may be able to contribute something to human life that is mutually beneficial--like a puppy providing us with happiness and us providing it with food--it is irrational to assert that animal species should be allowed to choose whether to enter into this bargain or not. Society is not designed, and cannot be designed, for animal benefit in general; only specific examples of mutual advantage can be found. Therefore, not all animals can have legal rights as citizens."
| |
|
Biodiversity and Animal Rights, 2002.
An investigation of the ethical arguments found in biodiversity and animal rights.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper assesses the ethical and utilitarian arguments concerning animal rights in respect to global biodiversity. In respect to the question of biodiversity, it is questionable as to whether there is an ethical position as to why animals should be preserved, or whether humanity justifies their support of animal rights due to purely self- serving reasons. This paper investigates whether animal rights in this instance is created out of concern for the animals themselves, or whether the argument is merely justification for preserving the welfare of the human race.
| |
|
Animal Rights/Animal Liberation, 1999.
Defends the ethical basis for the animal rights movement in their fight against the use of animals in research, based on ecocentric philosophy.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 16 sources, $ 95.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Serious questions have been raised about the ethical justification of the use of animals in research designed to benefit human beings. Moral condemnation for the use of animals to benefit humans, however, is not the principal point of such questions. The issue of the use of animals in research is an integral part of the framework of animal rights/animal liberation within the larger structure of environmental ethics. This research defends the ethical framework of animal rights/ animal liberation. The primary focus in this defense is on the use of animals in research designed to benefit human beings
From the Paper
"ANIMAL RIGHTS/ANIMAL LIBERATION: AN ETHICAL DEFENSE
Introduction
Serious questions have been raised about the ethical justification of the use of animals in research designed to benefit human beings. Moral condemnation for the use of animals to benefit humans, however, is not the principal point of such questions. The issue of the use of animals in research is an integral part of the framework of animal rights/animal liberation within the larger structure of environmental ethics. This research defends the ethical framework of animal rights/ animal liberation. The primary focus in this defense is on the use of animals in research designed to benefit human beings.
The Ethical Basis of Animal Rights/Animal Liberation ..."
| |
|
Animal Rights, 1999.
This is an argument against supporting PETA and animal rights activists.
990 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 1 source, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is an argument against PETA's policies regarding the protection of animals at all cost. The author argues that PETA and animal rights activists' policies have led to inequality in the world, and that the poorer nations are suffering as a result of these policies. The author also argues, that there is an order to the world, and that animals and humans each play a specific role in this world order.
From the paper:
"However it?s not acceptable at all for undeveloped or poor countries not having any of those advanced technologies. For instance, because of a lack of crops and vegetables, which results from not having advanced agricultural technology, people in poor and undeveloped countries need to get animals and eat their meat to survive. Besides, far from use and need, animals are like enemies to some tribal people. They have to fight with enemies, and they sometimes have to kill enemies in some cases. The policy of ?animal rights? is valid only for developed countries, and it indicates that such animal rights organizations like PETA mostly consist of people from advanced countries with great consideration for animals and no consideration for the needy elsewhere in the world."
| |
|
Animal Rights, 2007.
An analysis of Immanuel Kant's views on animals' feelings and rights.
1,272 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper introduces, discusses and analyzes the topic of animal rights. Specifically, it investigates what Immanuel Kant believed about the treatment of animals and animal rights. It discusses how Kant might have felt about the use of animals for biomedical research. It also provides criticisms of Kant's views on animals' feelings and rights.
From the Paper
"Kant would probably agree with animal testing, as it can aid the treatment of many human diseases, and the harm of a few animals for the good of rational human beings makes perfect sense. However, if animals can indeed feel pain and can suffer, then animal testing is often cruel and abusive. Kant might agree morally with using animals to save human lives, but a visit to a testing laboratory might change his view. Many of the cruelties these labs use in the name of science are difficult to view. Cohen believes that using animals in all testing does not make sense, but it does make sense in areas where there is the most risk to humans in testing. However, another animal rights expert disagrees. He writes, "Rights thought dictates that we cannot kill one rights-holder to save another - or even more than one other - whether or not the life of the former is 'different' from that of the latter" (Zak 281). This certainly is far from Kant's views on animals and their value to society. Kant feels they have little value other than intrinsic and humanistic value, and so, there is nothing ethically wrong with using them to benefit and enhance human life."
| |
|
Environmentalism vs. Animal Rights, 2007.
A discussion of the environmental movement and its issues with animal rights activists.
1,223 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the similarities of outlook and points of departure between environmentalists and animal rights activists. This includes a literature review which evaluates the background for the differing perspectives of these groups. The author points out similarities between environmentalists and animal rights activists, but concludes that these groups still have distinct opinions. The paper concludes by stating the two groups should be aware that they are fighting the same battle.
From the Paper
" The facts of the matter are this: there are some people who believe that environmental ethics and animal rights are two different and disjointed genres, there are still who believe that animal rights and the conservative or backward morals/principles have more in common then environmental ethics and animal right, it is also true, perhaps based on the most sound facts, that both the advocates of environmental health and animals rights have the exact identical foe, for example, an environmentalist and animal rights activist would both equally care about the hazardous effects of cutting down rainforests to evenly space the luxurious demand of lifestyles of the ever growing population, they would equally be concerned about the poisonous waste dumps in the oceans and rivers that has been one of the causes of the endangerment of whales, etc. In fact, when looking at the records of the environmental fights and debates that have been fought in the past, it is no surprise to see the aspect of animal suffering and extinction being given its due attention. It is also interesting to note that fights fought by the environmentalist and animal rights activist before the World War II took place were all based on the selfish and ruthless destruction of one of the nature's most bounty resources and the extinction of the other in order to better insure the development of weapons or forces equipments, and treating both the natural resources and animals (humans and non-humans) as expendable and insignificant goods. Both groups refused to believe in the utmost faith given to science as the solution to all the problems and it is no surprise that both these revolutions began with very little space between each other. There are people now who support both the groups; environmentalist and animal rights, and feel that there is no distinction or apprehension between the two concepts, and feel that both are concerned about the greater good of the same thing: nature (Jamieson, 1997). "
| |
|
Animal Rights, 2004.
Takes a look at animal rights regulations and how these regulations have negatively impacted human rights.
4,126 words (approx. 16.5 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 110.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents the position that unbalanced animal rights policies have an unfair and detrimental effect on some human rights. The paper presents arguments that support its position and suggests that, in order to balance the rights and safety of men and the rights of animals, the government must develop a means testing approach to wildlife protection, which could be assembled to measure economic impact of proposed animal rights declarations.
Introduction to the ESA
The Cougar's Plight
The Problem of Protection
Protected Species vs. Protected Species
Conclusion and Research Proposal
From the Paper
"According to Merriam-Webster?s Dictionary of Law (1996), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) obligated the government to protect all animal and plant life threatened with extinction. Included in this category are endangered species, which is defined as any species ?which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.? Also protected are threatened species, which are defined as any species ?which is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.? The wide brush of this act is creating problems for those who are granting the rights to the animals. Unlike humans, who have been granted certain unalienable rights by their creator, (US Bill of Rights) animals receive the rights they enjoy from the highest species on the earth, man."
| |
|
Anthropological Arguments for Animal Rights, 2008.
A discussion on animal rights activism.
860 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses animal rights activism, explaining how the subject raises many different issues with equally diverse underlying philosophies ranging from biblical principles, religion, objective ethics, as well as anthropological arguments about what specific qualities and attributes make us human. From the scientific perspective, we now possess the tools and technological capabilities to understand that Homo sapiens differs from other mammals strictly in degree rather than in kind.
Outline:
Introduction
Defining what Makes Homo Sapiens Sapiens "Human" (and what Does Not)
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Animal rights activism raises many different issues with equally diverse underlying philosophies ranging from biblical principles, religion, objective ethics, as well as anthropological arguments about what specific qualities and attributes make us human. From the scientific perspective, we now possess the tools and technological capabilities to understand that Homo sapiens sapiens differs from other mammals strictly in degree rather than in kind.
"Nevertheless, most animal activist rhetoric focuses on identifying specific attributes as characteristically human upon which arguments for animal rights are based. Extremist groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) go even further, suggesting that all animals be entitled to the same rights as people and that every
form of animal food, clothing, and ownership be abolished. Even more disturbing is that some animal rights terrorists also subscribe to the reciprocal of that concept, arguing that human beings are entitled to no greater rights than those we give animals, justifying the endangerment of human lives in terrorist attacks on research facilities housing animals."
| |
|
Animal Rights in Philosophy, 2004.
Presents the issue of animal rights supported through philosophy.
2,119 words (approx. 8.5 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Humanism is a set of presuppositions that assigns to human beings a special position in the scheme of things. Not just a school of thought or a collection of specific beliefs or doctrines, humanism is rather a general perspective from which the world is viewed. That perspective received a gradual yet persistent articulation during different historical periods and continues to furnish a central leitmotif of Western civilization. It resists the tendency to treat humanity scientifically as part of the natural order on par with other living organisms. This is the position put forth in the paper to support the author's stance on advocating animal rights. Humanists attribute crucial importance to education, conceiving of it as an all-around development of personality and individual talents, marrying science to poetry and culture to democracy. The paper shows that such philosophies as egoism, utilitarianism, and ethical relativism all seem to lend a hand in supporting this ethical topic.
From the Paper
"Utilitarianism draws together more exactly to the nurturing of the human consciousness. It concentrates on "utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being?" (Mill, 92). Progression, of course, is seen as a slow development towards being more and more socially enlightened, more attuned to the greater good. Gandhi writes: ?The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.? (Dyer & Dyer). Utilitarianism suggests the greatest happiness for all. If one assumes that animals are indeed consciences then they might be included in this over-arching all, and certainly that would defend their rights."
| |
|
Animal Rights, 2005.
A discussion on animal rights.
920 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the pros and cons of animal rights, taking the side in defense of such right. The paper cites a number of sources to support that contention. It also offers the arguments of supporters of animal right's movement.
From the Paper
"In a world increasingly filled with abuse, violence, neglect and lack of regard for the lives of human beings it becomes ever more difficult to uphold the rights and ethical treatment of other species as well as babies-both at the embryo ..."
| |
|
Animal Rights, 2008.
A discussion on how ethics and morality extend to matters associated with the treatment of animals.
3,528 words (approx. 14.1 pages), 11 sources, APA, $ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper summarizes and critiques several different theories associated with the ethical treatment of animals. The paper focuses on the treatment of animals as it relates to hunting and trapping animals, eating animals, using animals for research, and the manner in which domestic and wild animals are treated. The paper summarizes and critiques several theories including anthropocentrism, animal liberation, strong animal rights theory, weak(er) animal rights theory, two-factor egalitarianism, biocentric egalitarianism and ecocentric views.
Outline:
Introduction
Anthropocentrism
Animal Liberation
Biocentric Egalitarianism
Weak Animal Rights Theory
Strong Animal Rights Theory
Two Factor Egalitarianism
Ecocentric Views
Opinion Concerning Ethical Issues and the best Theory to Address These Issues
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Finally, as it relates to the manner in which domestic and wild animals are treated, there must be standards associated with their treatment. As it relates to domestic animals there are many laws that govern their treatment and the responsibilities that owners have for their pets. As it relates to wild animals there is a definite need to have animals at zoos for the purpose of educating people. If an animal is near extinction people might have more compassion and a greater understanding of the plight of the animal if they were educated about their existence and why it needs to be preserved. Educating people may also challenge them to do what they can to preserve a particular species. As with domestic animals there are rules a regulations that govern the treatment of animals at zoos and aquariums, these regulations should be adhered to and in some cases the laws. "
| |
|
Animal Rights, 2006.
An examination of the arguments for and against the use of animals as a means to improve the quality of life for humans.
910 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Animal welfare theories hold that while animals have interests, those interests can be sacrificed if there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice. As against this, animal rights activists believe that animals have the same rights as human beings, which include the right to life, freedom from ownership and confinement, and from use as a food source or subject of medical research without consent. This paper researches the arguments of both animal welfare and animal rights theories before attempting to draw any conclusion on the subject.
From the Paper
"Ethical standards of behavior have evolved along with human understanding of the value of life. Indeed, this fact is evident in the historical evolution of the human right to life, liberty, and dignity, which was followed by the belief that life in all its myriad forms should be valued. In fact, it is the latter worldview, which now forms the basis of the controversy over the use of animals in medical research and experiments. Currently, this controversy revolves around whether animals have as much right to life as human beings. Depending on the standpoint taken on this basic issue, arguments range on a continuum between animal welfare and animal rights."
| |
|
Eco-feminism and Animal Rights, 2002.
An interview with a feminist connected to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and a review of literature on the subject.
1,924 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Since the 1970s, the feminist movement has expanded in many directions. There are feminists solely concerned with equal rights for women who are part of the liberal wing of feminism. There are the romantic feminists who contend that women and men really are different, but that the superiority is on the side of women's socialization. The paper shows that there are also feminists who have connected more with international movements for social justice, sustainability and ecological rights. This paper conducts an interview with a feminist involved with the animals rights movement. It then briefly explores the connection between feminism and animal rights by analyzing available literature on the subject.
From the Paper
"Vandana Shiva (1989) provided many concrete examples of the connection between women's oppression, and suffering, and the degradation of the natural world. She also talked about the way that ordinary women themselves have begun to make that connection and start to fight back to preserve the parts of their world that allow them to survive. For example, the Chipko movement in India was begun by women who sought to stop deforestation by literally hugging trees, trying to keep the trees from being removed. For them, the trees, and a sustainable forest ecology, meant the ability to provide heat, energy, cooking fuel, and other necessities for their families. They realized that with deforestation and development came poverty. Development, in the Western style, was not desirable to many of them."
|
|
|
