Since the history of human life, animals have been overtly dominated by man in all aspects. In fact, the advent of intellectual growth lead to the realization that innumerable feeling beings were being deprived their rights simply because of the class which they are associated with. Thus, the infringement of animal rights became noticeable. Consequently, the proponents of animal rights undertook tremendous efforts to protect them (Sherry 144).
In essence, animals have rights too. From the time when the deterrence of cruelty to animals in the year 1824 at England came into place, there have been remarkable contentious debates on the fundamental matter of animal rights. The earliest societies were instituted to safeguard and maintain fair treatment of work animals such as horses, household pets and livestock. Quite notable the nineteenth century marked great proceeds in the formation of more institutions to oppose the use of animals in scientific experiments. In the modern world, various organizations such as PETA or Ethical Treatment of Animals have maintained great reputation in maintaining a brawny fight for animal rights as well as formulating new agendas that foster them (Sherry 210).
The exploitation of animals for foodstuff and scientific research amongst other forms of exploitation limits animals to a world of the confines that we humans consent. Essentially, animals are not only in the world we are in, but also have a life that is of their own importance. The activities that occur in their surroundings do matter to them. The animal life entails a diversity of individual, biological and social wants. The fulfillment of these needs is a basic source of contentment, and their abuse or compromise is a source of suffering. Thus, handling animals requires an auspicious appreciation of ethics and acknowledgement of substantial moral principles (sherry 214).
According to Cohen, animals have no rights, and only humans have the capability to perceive the moral consequences of their actions and reasonably aware of what the effects are to animals or other human beings. He bases his argument from this perspective citing their unprincipled nature and lack of capacity to judge situations like human beings do. Although animals lack the ability to reason to the degree of human beings, it is wrong to treat animals anyhow. He further argues that people have absolute control over animals. This is intolerable, given that it involves infringing animals’ rights in this context. Even if human beings have sole responsibility over animals, they should not be abused. Animals deserve proper treatment as a part of nature. For instance, it is human beings’ duty to vaccinate animals for the good of their health and preventing them from diseases not only because they are beneficial, but also as a part of their responsibility. Human beings are moral agents and should not take part in inhumane activities to inflict pain on animals (Regan 16).
Cohen’s argument is not right, because animals deserve to live according to their nature and they should be free from exploitation, harm or abuse. Animals have a right to be free human cruelty as well. Animals should be treated right, because they feel pain too. They have right to live and yet humans abuse them for other purposes other than food. Although animals are not entitled to as many rights as human beings, they are entitled to proper treatment and care. Human beings should be keen to ensure that animals have a proper life rather than mistreating them. Human beings keep away from using fellow humans in medical research, although it would lead to more accurate outcomes, since human rights are against this.