a good thesis statement for animal rights

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Rights — Thesis Statement For Animals Deserve Rights, And Their Rights

Thesis Statement for Animals Deserve Rights, and Their Rights

• Categories: Animal Rights Animal Welfare

About this sample

Words: 671 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 671 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Thesis statement, history and debates, development and resolution.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1083 words

4 pages / 1783 words

2 pages / 878 words

3 pages / 1351 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Rights

PETA, also known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is a globally recognized organization that advocates for animal rights and aims to bring about change in society's attitudes towards animals. Since its [...]

Animal rights have become a pressing topic in modern-day society due to the increased awareness of animal welfare and ethical responsibilities. The concept of animal rights involves the recognition of animals as sentient beings [...]

As the debate surrounding marine mammal captivity continues to gain traction, the case of Lolita, a captive killer whale at the Miami Seaquarium, serves as a focal point for discussions on animal welfare, conservation, and [...]

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many years, with strong arguments on both sides. However, the practice of using animals for testing purposes is not only ethically questionable but also scientifically [...]

Zoos have been a topic of debate for many years, with some arguing that they play a crucial role in conservation efforts, while others believe that they are unethical and should be banned. This essay will explore the history of [...]

“Elephants in the wild travel up to 50 miles every day” and hundreds of those elephants are captured and bred into captivity (Dahl 1). Keeping them would be inherently cruel, for they would have to live the rest of their lives [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Animal Rights Essay: Topics, Outline, & Writing Tips

• 🐇 Animal Rights Essay: the Basics
• 💡 Animal Rights Essay Topics
• 📑 Outlining Your Essay
• ✍️ Sample Essay (200 Words)

🔗 References

🐇 animal rights essay: what is it about.

Animal rights supporters advocate for the idea that animals should have the same freedom to live as they wish, just as humans do. They should not be exploited or used in meat , fur, and other production. At long last, we should distinguish animals from inanimate objects and resources like coal, timber, or oil.

Interdisciplinary research has shown that animals are emotional and sensitive, just like we are.

Their array of emotions includes joy, happiness, embarrassment, resentment, jealousy, anger, love, compassion, respect, disgust, despair, and even grief.

However, animal rights legislation does not extend human rights to animals. It establishes their right to have their fundamental needs and interests respected while people decide how to treat them. This right changes the status of animals from being property to being legal entities.

The statement may sound strange until we recall that churches , banks, and universities are also legal entities. Their interests are legally protected by law. Then why do we disregard the feelings of animals , which are not inanimate institutions? Several federal laws protect them from human interference.

But the following statements are only some of the rules that could one day protect animal rights in full:

• Animals should not be killed by hunting.
• Animals’ habitats should allow them to live in freedom.
• Animals should not be bred for sale or any other purpose.
• Animals should not be used for food by industries or households.

Most arguments against the adoption of similar laws are linked to money concerns. Animal exploitation has grown into a multi-billion-dollar industry. The lives of many private farmers depend on meat production, and most people prefer not to change the comfortable status quo.

Animal Rights Argumentative Essay

An animal rights argumentative essay should tackle a problematic issue that people have widely discussed. While choosing ideas for the assignment, opt for the most debatable topics.

Here is a brief list of argumentative essay prompts on animal rights:

• The pros and cons of animal rights.
• Can humanity exist without meat production?
• Do animals have souls?
• Should society become vegan to protect animal rights?

As you see, these questions could raise controversy between interlocutors. Your purpose is to take a side and give several arguments in its support. Then you’ll have to state a counterargument to your opinion and explain why it is incorrect.

Animal Rights Persuasive Essay

An animal rights persuasive essay should clearly state your opinion on the topic without analyzing different points of view. Still, the purpose of your article is to persuade the reader that your position is not only reasonable but the only correct one. For this purpose, select topics relating to your opinion or formulated in questionary form.

For example:

• What is your idea about wearing fur?
• Do you think people would ever ban animal exploitation?
• Is having pets a harmful practice?
• Animal factories hinder the development of civilization .

💡 53 Animal Rights Essay Topics

• Animal rights have been suppressed for ages because people disregard their mental abilities .
• Cosmetic and medical animal testing .
• Laws preventing unnecessary suffering of animals mean that there is some necessary suffering.
• Red fluorescent protein transgenic dogs experiment.
• Do you believe animals should have legal rights?
• Genetically modified animals and implications.
• Why is animal welfare important?
• Neutering animals to prevent overpopulation: Pros and cons.
• Animal testing: Arguments for and against.
• What is our impact on marine life?
• Some animals cannot stay wild.
• Animal testing for medical purposes .
• We are not the ones to choose which species to preserve.
• Pavlov’s dog experiment .
• Keeping dogs chained outdoors is animal neglect.
• The use of animals for research .
• Animal dissection as a learning tool: Alternatives?
• More people beat their pets than we think.
• Duties to non-human animals.
• If we do not control the population of some animals, they will control ours.
• Animals in entertainment: Not entertaining at all.
• Animals in research, education, and teaching.
• Which non-animal production endangers the species?
• Is animal testing really needed?
• Why do some people think that buying a new pet is cheaper than paying for medical treatment of the old one?
• Animal experiments: benefits, ethics, and defenders.
• Can people still be carnivorous if they stop eating animals?
• Animal testing role.
• Marine aquariums and zoos are animal prisons.
• Animal experimentation: justification arguments .
• What would happen if we replace animals in circuses with people, keeping the same living conditions?
• The ethics of animal use in scientific research .
• Animal sports: Relics of the past.
• Animal testing ban: counterargument and rebuttal .
• Denial to purchase animal-tested cosmetics will not change anything.
• Animal research, its ineffectiveness and amorality.
• Animal rights protection based on their intellect level: It tells a lot about humanity.
• Debates of using animals in scientific analysis .
• How can we ban tests on rats and kill them in our homes at the same time?
• Animal testing in experiments .
• What is the level of tissue engineering development in leather and meat production?
• Equal consideration of interests to non-human animals .
• Animals should not have to be our servants.
• Zoos as an example of humans’ immorality.
• We should feed wild animals to help them survive.
• Animal testing in biomedical research.
• Abolitionism: The right not to be owned.
• Do you support the Prima facie rights theory?
• Psychologist perspective on research involving animal and human subjects.
• Ecofeminism: What is the link between animals’ and women’s rights?
• No philosophy could rationalize cruelty against animals.
• Qualities that humans and animals share .
• Ancient Buddhist societies and vegetarianism: A research paper.

Need more ideas? You are welcome to use our free research topic generator !

📑 Animal Rights Essay Outline

An animal rights essay should be constructed as a standard 5-paragraph essay (if not required otherwise in the assignment). The three following sections provide a comprehensive outline.

Animal Rights Essay: Introduction

An introduction consists of:

• Background information,
• A thesis statement .

In other words, here you need to explain why you decided to write about the given topic and which position you will take. The background part should comprise a couple of sentences highlighting the topicality of the issue. The thesis statement expresses your plans in the essay.

For example: In this essay, I will explain why animal-based production harms the ecology.

Animal Rights Essay: Main Body

The main body is a place for you to argue your position . One paragraph equals one argument. In informative essays, replace argumentation with facts.

Start each section with a topical sentence consisting of a general truth. Then give some explanation and more specific points. By the way, at the end of this article, you’ll find a bonus! It is a priceless selection of statistics and facts about animal rights.

Animal Rights Essay: Conclusion

A conclusion restates your central ideas and thesis statement. Approach it as a summary of your essay, avoid providing new facts or arguments.

✍️ Animal Rights Essay Example (200 Words)

Why is animal welfare important? The term “animal welfare” evokes the pictures of happy cows from a milk advertisement. But the reality has nothing to do with these bright videos. Humane treatment of animals is a relative concept. This essay explains why animal welfare is important, despite that it does not prevent farms from killing or confining animals.

The best way to approach animal welfare is by thinking of it as a temporary measure. We all agree that the current state of the economy does not allow humanity to abandon animal-based production. Moreover, such quick decisions could make farm animals suffer even more. But ensuring the minimum possible pain is the best solution as of the moment.

The current legislation on animal welfare is far from perfect. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 prevents cruelty against animals in labs and zoos. Meanwhile, the majority of suffering animals do not fall under its purview. For example, it says nothing about the vivisection of rats and mice for educational and research purposes, although the procedure is extremely painful for the creature. Neither does it protect farm animals.

Unfortunately, the principles of animal welfare leave too much room for interpretation. Animals should be free from fear and stress, but how can we measure that? They should be allowed to engage in natural behaviors, but no confined space would let them do so. Thus, the legislation is imprecise.

The problem of animal welfare is almost unresolvable because it is a temporary measure to prevent any suffering of domesticated animals. It has its drawbacks but allows us to ensure at least some comfort for those we unjustifiably use for food. They have the same right to live on this planet as we do, and animal farming will be stopped one day.

📊 Bonus: Statistics & Facts for Your Animal Rights Essay Introduction

Improve the quality of your essay on animal rights by working in the following statistics and facts about animals.

• According to USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service , about 4.6 billion animals — including hogs, sheep, cattle, chickens, ducks, lambs, and turkey — were killed and used for food in the United States last year (2015).
• People in the U.S. kill over 100 million animals for laboratory experiments every year, according to PETA .
• More than 40 million animals are killed for fur worldwide every year. About 30 million animals are raised and killed on fur farms, and nearly 10 million wild animals are hunted and killed for the same reasons — for their valuable fur.
• According to a report by In Defense of Animals , hunters kill more than 200 million animals in the United States yearly.
• The Humane Society of the United States notes that a huge number of cats and dogs — between 3 and 4 million each year — are killed in the country’s animal shelters. Sadly, this number does not include dogs or cats killed in animal cruelty cases.
• According to the ASPCA , about 7.6 million companion animals enter animal shelters in the United States yearly. Of this number, 3.9 Mil of dogs, and 3.4 Mil of cats.
• About 2.7 million animals are euthanized in shelters every year (1.4 million cats and 1.2 million dogs).
• About 2.7 million shelter animals are adopted every year (1.3 million cats and 1.4 million dogs).
• In total, there are approximately 70-80 million dogs and 74-96 million cats living as pets in the United States.
• It’s impossible to determine the exact number of stray cats and dogs living in the United States, but the number of cats is estimated to be up to 70 million.
• Many stray cats and dogs were once family pets — but they were not kept securely indoors or provided with proper identification.

Each essay on animals rights makes humanity closer to a better and more civilized world. Please share any thoughts and experience in creating such texts in the comments below. And if you would like to hear how your essay would sound in someone’s mind, use our Text-To-Speech tool .

• Why Animal Rights? | PETA
• Animal Rights – Encyclopedia Britannica
• Animal ethics: Animal rights – BBC
• Animal Health and Welfare – National Agricultural Library
• The Top 10 Animal Rights Issues – Treehugger
• Animal welfare – European Commission

Research Paper Analysis: How to Analyze a Research Article + Example

Film analysis: example, format, and outline + topics & prompts.

• Dissertation
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Book Report/Review
• Research Proposal
• Math Problems
• Proofreading
• Movie Review
• Cover Letter Writing
• Personal Statement
• Nursing Paper
• Argumentative Essay
• Research Paper
• Discussion Board Post

How to Deal with Animal Right Essays: Quick & Simple Prompts

Table of Contents

Whether you’re a student at the Ethics, Biology, or Medicine department, you can receive an assignment to write animal right essays from time to time.

On the one hand, the task may seem simple and manageable at first glance. On the other hand, such essays (as any other type of academic work) require careful research, outlining, structuring, and writing in line with top academic standards. Thus, if you’re stuck on this task with no ideas in mind, read on to find valuable tips for this kind of essay.

Here we compiled valuable recommendations from our writing experts about:

• Finding an interesting, relevant topic.
• Composing an animal rights outline.
• Developing an effective animal rights thesis statement.
• Researching credible sources for animal right essays.
• Structuring your arguments.
• Effective editing and proofreading of the assignment.

Why It Is Important to Discuss Animal Rights

Whenever you approach writing about animal rights, this topic’s relevance always surfaces as a critical vantage point of your animal rights essays. It’s a commonly recognized fact that throughout history, humans have been too cruel toward animals, and they have ruined much of the authentic wildlife ecosystems in the process of industrialization and urbanization. As a result, numerous species lost their habitats and were urged to seek shelter elsewhere, thus altering other natural habitats by residing in places where they shouldn’t be.

Even in cities, where people and animals seem to have different lives, cruel treatment and abuse of human authority are evident.

First, pets are not always treated ethically and respectfully, mainly because of their legal status as human property.

Second, many pets are abandoned and flood the streets, where they are either killed by other street animals or are doomed to wandering the streets and surviving by eating trash and food remnants.

Third, corporate breeding animals for food (e.g., children farms and daily factories) is highly inhumane, involving cruel treatment of animals and their stay in awful conditions.

The situation with wildlife is not much better, with hunters and poachers killing wild animals for fun and entertainment. Fires and floods caused by human-made climate change also urge wild animals to seek shelter and food in human residences, which often ends in their killing or captivation.

Thus, as one can see, the problem of animal rights and human oppression of the planet’s fauna is pressing, with so many manifestations of unethical, inconsiderate, and cruel attitudes to all creatures, great and small.

Main Points to Elaborate on

Given the problems surrounding animal protection and rights today, you can approach the subject from numerous perspectives in your academic assignment:

• Legal rights of animals in your country or abroad. Comparison of legal policies towards wildlife and pet protection.
• Pet protection and a new legal status for pets.
• Legal and ethical standards for corporate farming.
• Legal and ethical standards for animal use with medical/experimental purposes.
• Wildlife protection and conservation.
• Protection of marine life from exploitative industrial practices.

How to Write Animal Rights Essay Introduction

All animal right essays should start with an impactful introduction so that your audience understands what you’re talking about, what you’re driving at, and what your key arguments are.

To achieve this goal, we recommend structuring an introduction as follows:

• First, discuss the broad context of the paper – animal rights in general, what kinds of rights they possess, and what abuses of those rights are observed globally.
• You may also boost the interest of your readers by citing some shocking stats or providing some anecdotal evidence. Anyway, this information should be relevant, pointing to the serious, pressing problem in the field of animal rights you have identified.
• Next, it’s vital to formulate the problem clearly and indicate how you will resolve/discuss it. It will be your thesis statement.

Following this structure, you’re sure to make a captivating intro that will urge your audience to read the paper until its end.

Animal Rights Essay Outline

To complete animal right essays quickly and effectively, you need to perform some pre-writing work. Composing an outline is always a helpful approach to organizing the basis for your writing process as you receive a roadmap for the further composition of your essay’s vital parts.

Here is a sample outline for a paper about pet rights and legal status. Still, you can successfully appropriate this outline for any other topic by following the instructions about each part’s content.

INTRODUCTION

Introduce your subject and give some background information. Underline the problem’s significance. State your key idea of the paper.

Pets are typically a part of the family in which they live, causing warm feelings and enjoying commitment from the people who invited them to their homes. Still, sadly, pets are considered property by law in 90% of countries, limiting the protection of cruelly treated and abandoned animals. Thus, a legal change is required to improve pet coverage by law and enable animal rights advocates to take measures against pet maltreatment.

BODY OF THE PAPER

Paragraph #1-3 – Indicate a topic sentence with each paragraph’s key idea. Support that key idea with some supporting data from credible sources. Offer your interpretation of the information in those external sources. Make a transition to the next paragraph and then to the conclusion.

Paragraph #1 – statistics on pet maltreatment. Animal abandonment and abuse.

Paragraph #2 – protective legislation. E.g., the UK Animal Welfare Act (2007), felony animal cruelty laws in the USA.

Paragraph #3 – animal rights advocacy organizations (e.g., ALDF). Actions they take to prevent and minimize pet maltreatment.

Summarize your arguments concisely and refer them back to the general argument. Clarify the arguments’ significance for the broader subject of your research. Again, stress the importance of dwelling on this subject theoretically and with practical steps.

Pet abuse is still commonplace because of the legal status of home animals as human property. Still, numerous laws and activist organizations work to change the situation. A broader legal change is required to change pets’ status and enhance their protection.

How to Write Animal Rights Thesis Statement

The thesis statement for animal right essays should be clear and concise, communicating your central message and purpose of the paper. The thesis should not be too long or too short. It should also incorporate the central arguments you’ll expand in the following sections of your text.

In this way, this statement will function as your readers’ roadmap leading them from one argument to another one and helping them follow your logic.

20 Animal Topics for Research Papers – Choose the Best Idea

Looking for some bulletproof animal topics for research papers? Here is a list you can use on all occasions to compose various academic works with ease.

• Is it realistic to protect all animal rights today?
• Is the animals’ right to no selective breeding compatible with the human needs?
• What is the best way to protect animals from the harmful impact of humans?
• Is hunting ethical on any grounds?
• Hunting and animal species extinction – a need for a more effective protective policy.
• Is experimentation on animals generally avoidable?
• How does the human-made climate change affect the well-being of fauna?
• Is pet euthanasia a reality?
• The impact of massive fishing on biodiversity and fish species survival.
• Increasing peopling of suburbs and the loss of animal habitat – a reverse side of people’s flight from the vices of urbanization.
• What is the impact of invasive species on the local wildlife? Discuss with examples.
• Cruel handling of corporately farmed animals.
• Is overbreeding of pets a pressing problem? What are the far-reaching consequences of overbreeding?
• Destroying predators – a step towards human safety or an ecological crime? Discuss the fundamental role of predators in local wildlife and the adverse effects of these species’ minimization.
• Are police and military dogs given similar rights upon retirement as people who served their motherland? Discuss more extensive coverage of police/military dog health and care services.
• What kinds of experiments on animals are unavoidable to save people’s lives? And what are senseless and cruel?
• Animal abuse in zoos – the reverse side of human entertainment and endangered species conservation.
• Is it ethical to use animals in hard manual/agricultural labor?
• What can people do to enhance animal rights protection?
• Is it ethical to consider animals human property? The need for a legal change of pet status as a vital contribution to the more humane treatment of home pets.

With these topics, you’re sure to beat all professors’ expectations and develop an attention-grabbing, exciting argument.

Need Professional Help?

Writing animal right essays is an exciting activity that can help you hone your writing skills and, at the same time, enhance your understanding of the topic. But what can you do if the task seems too complicated or you have too little time for composing several urgent papers?

No panic; our service is available 24/7, and experts employed here are ready to respond to all student needs quickly and effectively. So, if you’re short of time or are stuck with no ideas in mind, no need to get an F for that essay. Contact us today, and our skilled authors will compose an impressive A-grade assignment to cover your back.

Place an order today and sit back, relaxing and knowing that your task is in the expert hands.

How to Check for Plagiarism

Interesting Facts That Should Go into Your Essay on Sexual Harassment

Preparing to Write a Depression Research Paper

Arguments for Animal Rights Research Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Arguments for animal rights, conclusion and recommendations, works cited.

For a long time, many human societies have viewed animals as sources of food, labor, and clothing. This view (partly) stems from religious influences, which define people’s perceptions of animal rights. For example, Christian teachings show that God gave man the power to control all animals (on land and in the sea). Therefore, many Christian societies know that human beings are superior to animals.

Philosophers, such as Aristotle, also supported the above-mentioned religious arguments by ranking animals in the lowest cadre of living things (Taylor 36). Although the Greek philosopher explored the differences and similarities between both species, he said animals were a “lower-stature” species (compared to human beings) because they could not reason, think, or have beliefs, as people do (Taylor 36). These ancient perceptions of animals largely explain the background of animal rights debates. They also explain how different societies treat animals today.

Relative to how people treat animals, Singera (13) says, in 2001, North American farmers raised and killed about 17 billion land animals for human consumption. Scientists in America and Europe killed another 100 million animals for experimental purposes (Singera 13). People killed about 30 million more land animals for their fur (Singera 13).

Most of these animals lived and died in morally repugnant circumstances. Such “inhuman” treatments continue unabated because many societies believe animals do not have any rights. This paper seeks to change this narrative by focusing on pets and arguing for their rights. Although it explores critics’ arguments too, it shows that, like human beings, pets are emotional creatures and not property items, as many people would like to believe. Therefore, it is immoral to mistreat them.

Pets can feel Emotion and Pain as People do

Singera (1) is widely considered as the greatest pioneer of animal rights. He said human beings do not have a special status above other animals. For him, the degree that both species experience when feeling pleasure or pain is the only difference between animals and human beings. Since both groups have a threshold of pain, Singera (1) does not understand why people do not protect animals the same way they protect their offspring. Here, Singera (1) strives to eliminate the differences between animals and human beings to advance animal rights.

Linker (9) supports this view by saying, “Once the dividing line between humans and animals disappears, it is hard to uphold any fundamental ethical distinction between them.” Steve Wise, an American Law Professor (cited in Linker 9), similarly advances the above argument by using a different justification for supporting animal rights. Instead of using shared pain and pleasure to show the similarities between people and animals, he strives to elevate animals to human status. For example, he criticizes people who view animals as property because he believes animals could reason as human beings do.

For example, he says Chimpanzees have this ability (Linker 9). He uses this argument to say their reasoning ability makes them more valuable than other types of property. Therefore, he believes animals share the same dignity as people do. Referring to Wise’s argument, Linker (12) says, “if he can demonstrate that certain higher animals possess the same intrinsic dignity that human beings do, the law within liberal democracies will be obliged to recognize that such animals are persons possessing at least some fundamental, inviolable rights.”

The above arguments show no significant differences between people and animals. In terms of shared emotion and pain, Singerb (11) says scientists infer almost all human physiological pain manifestations on other species. He particularly draws our attention to animals that are close to us – mammals and birds. He says, “Their behavioral signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping, or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on” (Singerb 11).

Indeed, like how human beings behave (when they feel pain) animals show the same physiological symptoms of pain, such as dilated pupils, increased pulse rates, and increased blood pressure. To explain this commonality, Grandin (141) says both species have similar nervous systems. In line with this argument, Singerb (11) emphasizes that the nervous systems of animals evolved the same way the nervous systems of human beings did. Their ability to feel pain is part of their survival tactics because they use it to avoid injury and death.

Grandin (141) says animals also experience fear, the same way human beings do. Certainly, although fear is subjective, it causes significant stress to animals. This is why advocates of animal rights say they need environmental enrichments to prevent them from developing irregular developmental patterns, such as EEG patterns (Grandin 141). Relative to this argument, Grandin (141) says people’s nervous systems do not differ with that of higher animals. For example, scientific evidence shows that the nervous systems of chimpanzees, dogs, and cows are like that of human beings (Grandin 141).

The genome project also supports the same finding by showing that people’s gene make-up is like a mouse’s gene makeup (Grandin 141). Relative to this fact, Grandin (141) says mammals have more than 30% of their genes designed to serve nervous system functions. These similarities explain why some animals adopt human-like behaviors, such as self-medication. For example, studies have shown that rats self-medicate when they suffer from arthritis (Grandin 141). Besides these behavioral similarities, animals are as social as human beings are (Grandin 142).

Although some people may not support these facts, scientific evidence suggests that most animals perceive pain the same way human beings do. Governments have used this evidence to protect animal rights in many parts of the world. For example, three separate government committees (on animal welfare), in the UK, affirm that most animals feel pain (Singerb 13). However, Grandin (140) says we need more research to explain the extent that these animals experience the pain.

Animals are not Property

Taylor (36) says until the early 1900s, many people saw animals as worthless creatures. In fact, many societies could not accord a “property status” to them because of spite (Taylor 36). Therefore, the law permitted people to steal and kill animals without any consequences. The abolition approach has strived to change people’s perception of animals (as property).

It says that focusing on animal welfare distracts people from eliminating property rights on animal ownership (Grandin 140). Instead, the theory proposes a moral and legal paradigm shift, which strives to differentiate animals from other types of property (Grandin 140). To do so, the abolitionist approach encourages people to perceive animals as sentient creatures (having subjective awareness).

Proponents of this view say they do not need human-like rationalities to receive better treatment from people (Grandin 140). Therefore, since they are creatures that experience pain, they should belong to the moral community. This view differs with the animal rights view, which (only) supports the better treatment of human-like animals, such as apes, because their DNA make-up is more like human beings than other animals. As such, they say all animals are the same (Grandin 140). They also oppose treating animals as human property (merely) because they do not fit our conventional perceptions of property (Taylor 36).

Grandin (140) takes a more practical approach in elaborating the above point by comparing an animal and a screwdriver. He says that although many societies perceive them as property, they are different. To elaborate this point, he uses the US legal system and culture by highlighting how the law allows American citizens to sell, profit, and “eat” their property (among other utilities) (Grandin 140). Although property holders could do the above things, the law restricts them from committing the same acts on animals (the same restrictions do not apply to other properties).

For example, law enforcement officials could arrest a person for using a screwdriver to puncture a cow’s eye. However, they would not penalize the offender for using a hammer to deform a screwdriver. Based on this understanding, the status of animals has slowly changed, in America, because the law now recognizes animal rights. For example, all 50 states have introduced anti-cruelty laws that protect animals from mistreatment (Grimm 3). These laws allow judges to impose fines of up to $125,000, or a jail term of ten years on offenders (Grimm 4).

Similarly, many existing legislations support animal rights (such as the Federal Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act, which requires rescue services to save animals, as they would rescue a human being) (Grimm 3). This trend has equally seen many judges treat dogs as people (some judges even allow dogs to have lawyers).

Consequently, some animals have received damages from the judges (Grimm 3). Other types of “property” do not receive the same status. Using the above examples, Grandin (140) supports the views of animal rights advocates who say animals need rights because they feel pain (a goat can feel pain, but a screwdriver cannot).

It is Immoral to Mistreat Animals

Although many researchers have used different criteria to explain the differences between man and animals, few have bothered to explain man’s higher reasoning that allows them to act ethically. Indeed, unlike many animals, human beings can understand the differences between right and wrong. Based on this higher level of reasoning, people can understand that it is wrong to mistreat animals because they do not have rights.

This argument stems from the immoral and heinous acts that some people do to animals and people alike. Here, it is irrelevant to distinguish between animals and human beings because inflicting pain on another animal is wrong (human beings are animals too). People who do so diminish the moral authority that human beings have on other species.

The utilitarian view condemns how people treat and use animals. This theory says people should evaluate the net use of animals (to human beings) and adopt strategies that lead to the overall net satisfaction of animal and human interests (Singerb 14). Relative to this view, the utilitarian view urges people to “act in such a way as to maximize the expected satisfaction of interests in the world, equally considered” (Singerb 14).

When we apply this theory to animal treatment, it encourages people to imagine themselves in conditions that the animals live and, afterwards, take the best course of action. Using a welfare approach, the theory argues that all people should treat animals in a “humane” way and avoid inflicting unnecessary pain on them. In line with this argument, Singera (1) says it is important for people to take animal rights seriously because species-bias (the justification that most people use to mistreat animals) is like racism and other social practices that many societies dislike.

He also believes that most people who oppose animal rights do so because they rely on invariable animal defects, like their lack of language skills, or advanced cognitive skills, to mistreat animals (Singerb 14). On the other side, the same people do not perceive mentally incapacitated human beings (who cannot talk or profess the same advanced cognitive skills as other people do) as animals. Based on this analysis, Francione (3) says species-bias is the only justification that most people use to exploit animals. However, this reasoning is unjust.

Arguments Against

Many people have used the utilitarian view to support animal rights. However, this view has significant weaknesses that undermine its applicability to animal rights. For example, proponents of these rights say animals have feelings, the way human beings do (Singerb 14). However, Nordin (2) questions the criterion that such people use to measure these feelings (no one has ever been a dog or a cat).

Stated differently, people have used physiological variations in a dog’s behavior to advance the view that they experience pain or emotion, but how do people know how much pain it is feeling? For example, is it correct to assume that a whimpering dog experiences the same pain as a human baby crying? Similarly, it is difficult to draw the same inferences about a dog’s pain to a whale, frog, or another animal. Therefore, many critics question whether animals could express the same emotions as grief, melancholy, and a deep interest in life, as human beings do.

Machan (1) is among groups of researchers who do not understand why animals should have the same rights as people do. Particularly, they say it is a mistake for the government to entrench animal rights in law. For example, they believe that those people who support animal rights should persuade other people to join their cause, as opposed to forcing them to do so, legally (Machan 1).

Stated differently, Machan (2) says if advocates of animal rights do not support killing animals for their fur, they should persuade people to stop buying coats, or other animal products, and not ban the use of the animal product. Again, this argument stems from the belief that no animal enjoys the same basic rights as people do. As shown above, Machan (3) believes that all people should start perceiving this matter as an ethical issue, as opposed to a legal issue. He says people can empathize with the pain that other people feel, but animals cannot.

Therefore, he opposes the views of animal rights advocates, such as Singerb (14). He argues that if animals could empathize with the pain of other animals, people should hold them to the same accountability standards as human beings do (Machan 3). For example, animals should punish other animals for killing and maiming their kind.

Since this suggestion is impractical, Machan (3) says animal advocates have misguided views. However, he defines this issue as a philosophical one (category mistake) because advocates of animal rights strive to impose their hopes and dreams on animals, using human perceptions about life. Overall, although these arguments largely describe the views of many animal right critics, they do not legitimize the inhumane treatment of animals.

The abolitionist and utilitarian views are sympathetic to animal causes. They differ from classical animal welfare views, which do not have a high regard for the creatures, or their rights. Nonetheless, this paper shows that all animals should have the same rights as human beings do because they experience, pain, fear, and emotions. Similarly, animals are not like other types of property because they are human-like. Based on these arguments alone, it is immoral to mistreat animals and cause unnecessary pain to them.

Proponents of animal rights advance the above views. However, their thoughts are not theories of animal rights; instead, they are moral judgments of human actions on animals. Such ideas come from the consequences of what we perceive as right or wrong. For example, if a person violated the right of a person, or an animal, because it produced more good than bad, the law should not punish him. Based on the findings of this research, the “good” includes giving animals the same rights as people do.

Francione, Gary. Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance. September. 2003. PDF file.

Grandin, Temple. Animals Are Not Things: A View on Animal Welfare Based on Neurological, Complexity . 2014. PDF file.

Grimm, David. Should Pets Have the Same Legal Rights as People? 2014.

Linker, Damon. No, Animals Don’t Have Rights . 2014.

Machan, Tibor. Animals Do Not Have Rights . 2014.

Nordin, Ingemar. Animals Don’t Have Rights: A Philosophical Study . 2001. PDF file.

Singera, Peter. In Defense of Animals , Malded, Ma: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Print.

Singerb, Peter. Animal Liberation , New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002. Print.

Taylor, Angus. Animals and Ethics , New York, NY: Broadview Press, 2009. Print.

• Adopting a Pet for a Balanced Life
• The Psychological Aspect of Logical Fallacies of Technology
• The Scam of Flying Pets
• The Socioeconomic Profile of Germany
• Family Conflicts Assessment
• Summary of the Book "Sociology" by Richard Schaefer
• Alone Together by Sherry Turkle
• Home, Work and Relations in Middle-Class America
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 3). Arguments for Animal Rights. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-rights-arguments/

"Arguments for Animal Rights." IvyPanda , 3 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-rights-arguments/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Arguments for Animal Rights'. 3 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Arguments for Animal Rights." May 3, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-rights-arguments/.

1. IvyPanda . "Arguments for Animal Rights." May 3, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-rights-arguments/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Arguments for Animal Rights." May 3, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-rights-arguments/.

Animal Rights and Human Responsibilities: Towards a Relational Capabilities Approach in Animal Ethics

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

Description

In this thesis, I analyze some of the most important contributions concerning the inclusion of animals in the moral and political sphere. Moving from these positions, I suggest that a meaningful consideration of animals' sentience demands a profound, radical political theory which considers animals as moral patients endowed with specific capabilities whose actualization needs to be allowed and/or promoted. Such theory would take human-animal different types of relationships into account to decide what kind of ethical and political responsibilities humans have towards animals. It would be also based on the assumption that animals' sentience is the necessary and sufficient feature … continued below

Physical Description

iii, 44 pages

Creation Information

Guerini, Elena May 2018.

This thesis is part of the collection entitled: UNT Theses and Dissertations and was provided by the UNT Libraries to the UNT Digital Library , a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries . It has been viewed 977 times, with 19 in the last month. More information about this thesis can be viewed below.

People and organizations associated with either the creation of this thesis or its content.

• Guerini, Elena
• Ruderman, Richard Committee Chair

Committee Members

• Kaplan, David
• Greig, Michael
• University of North Texas Publisher Info: www.unt.edu Place of Publication: Denton, Texas

Rights Holder

For guidance see Citations, Rights, Re-Use .

Provided By

Unt libraries.

The UNT Libraries serve the university and community by providing access to physical and online collections, fostering information literacy, supporting academic research, and much, much more.

Descriptive information to help identify this thesis. Follow the links below to find similar items on the Digital Library.

Degree Information

• Name: Master of Arts
• Level: Master's
• Department: Department of Political Science
• College: College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
• Discipline: Political Science
• PublicationType: Master's Thesis
• Grantor: University of North Texas

In this thesis, I analyze some of the most important contributions concerning the inclusion of animals in the moral and political sphere. Moving from these positions, I suggest that a meaningful consideration of animals' sentience demands a profound, radical political theory which considers animals as moral patients endowed with specific capabilities whose actualization needs to be allowed and/or promoted. Such theory would take human-animal different types of relationships into account to decide what kind of ethical and political responsibilities humans have towards animals. It would be also based on the assumption that animals' sentience is the necessary and sufficient feature for assigning moral status. I start from the consideration that in the history of political philosophy, most theorists have excluded animals from the realm of justice. I then propose an examination of utilitarianism, capabilities approach, and relational-based theories of animal rights (in particular the works by Kymlicka and Donaldson, and Clare Palmer) and borrow essential elements from each of these approaches to build my theory. I claim that a political theory which attaches high importance to individual capabilities, as well as to the various types of relationships we have with animals, is the most appropriate to tackle the puzzle of human responsibilities to animals.

• Animal Ethics
• Animal Rights
• Capabilities Theory

Library of Congress Subject Headings

• Animal rights -- Political aspects.
• Animal welfare -- Political aspects.
• Thesis or Dissertation

Unique identifying numbers for this thesis in the Digital Library or other systems.

• Accession or Local Control No : submission_1129
• Archival Resource Key : ark:/67531/metadc1157548

Collections

This thesis is part of the following collection of related materials.

UNT Theses and Dissertations

Theses and dissertations represent a wealth of scholarly and artistic content created by masters and doctoral students in the degree-seeking process. Some ETDs in this collection are restricted to use by the UNT community .

What responsibilities do I have when using this thesis?

Digital Files

• 48 image files available in multiple sizes
• 1 file (.pdf)
• Metadata API: descriptive and downloadable metadata available in other formats

Dates and time periods associated with this thesis.

Creation Date

Added to the unt digital library.

• June 6, 2018, 1:19 p.m.

Description Last Updated

• Aug. 25, 2021, 8:11 a.m.

Usage Statistics

When was this thesis last used?

Interact With This Thesis

Here are some suggestions for what to do next.

Search Inside

• or search this site for other thesis or dissertations

Start Reading

• All Formats

Citations, Rights, Re-Use

• Citing this Thesis
• Responsibilities of Use
• Licensing and Permissions
• Linking and Embedding
• Copies and Reproductions

International Image Interoperability Framework

We support the IIIF Presentation API

Print / Share

Links for robots.

Helpful links in machine-readable formats.

Archival Resource Key (ARK)

• ERC Record: /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/?
• Persistence Statement: /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/??

International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF)

• IIIF Manifest: /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/manifest/

Metadata Formats

• UNTL Format: /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/metadata.untl.xml
• DC RDF: /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/metadata.dc.rdf
• DC XML: /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/metadata.dc.xml
• OAI_DC : /oai/?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=oai_dc&identifier=info:ark/67531/metadc1157548
• METS : /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/metadata.mets.xml
• OpenSearch Document: /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/opensearch.xml
• Thumbnail: /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/thumbnail/
• Small Image: /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/small/
• In-text: /ark:/67531/metadc1157548/urls.txt
• Usage Stats: /stats/stats.json?ark=ark:/67531/metadc1157548

Guerini, Elena. Animal Rights and Human Responsibilities: Towards a Relational Capabilities Approach in Animal Ethics , thesis , May 2018; Denton, Texas . ( https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1157548/ : accessed May 31, 2024 ), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu ; .

Please wait while we process your request

Writing an argumentative essay on animal testing

Academic writing

Essay paper writing

Writing any academic assignment requires rigorous preparation, and animal rights essay is not an exception. The issue of animal rights is considered to be one of the most topical nowadays. Of course, you have your own opinion about this topic, and it can be different from what you can find in other essays about animals on the Internet when searching for some materials. Don't worry – you have to understand that the purpose of writing this particular assignment is to describe your perception of this issue. You can compare opposing views, give examples of researches performed by other people, but your thesis statement and ideas should definitely be unique. The same thing is about the conclusion in which you briefly summarize all the major turning points as well as provide the new approach to the issue under investigation. Animal rights became a widely debated topic over the last century. The number of activist groups fighting for animal rights is growing as well as the number of cases when people exploit animals. So, while working on this academic topic, you will face two opposite views on this problem. However, it is up to you how to develop this topic. Now, you need to know where to start and how to move in the process of your writing to ensure that every single aspect of excellent academic writing is addressed. If you want to know more tips on how to do this when working on essays on animal testing, keep reading this article, and you will find a lot of useful pieces of advice to prepare the best assignment!

Animal testing essay

Animal testing essay is one of the most popular topics for consideration and research in universities across the world. With the ongoing heated debate about whether it’s appropriate to perform animal testing of various kinds, you can find an extensive list of evidence suggesting quite opposing variables.

Where do we start to work on this assignment? There are tons of information on this topic in libraries and online sources. It could take ages to study all of them. In order not to get lost in this amount of information, you need to formulate your animal testing thesis statement succinctly. What is your approach and your personal opinion about animal rights and animal testing in particular? Write down all the ideas that come to your mind because otherwise, you can forget something essential. Writing animal testing persuasive speech requires conducting an extensive research. You need to know the most popular and the latest studies, be aware of possible objections, and be sure of how you would cover them. Make sure you employ all the basic principles of logic when arguing your point, and don’t forget about the importance of critical thinking that you’ve been taught as a freshman. Yes, we know this can sound like a too obvious kind of advice, but you are never going to believe how many students fail to provide the convincing proof simply because they forget or neglect the common list of logical fallacies. So, as soon as you remember the proper structure that every academic essay should have and are aware of the formatting rules of your university, you need to get clear with what type of essay you will be writing. Is it a persuasive or argumentative essay? Or maybe, it’s a research paper? All of these types have slightly different principles of writing, and you have to understand them correctly to write a decent paper. Let’s look at each of them in more detail.

Animal testing argumentative essay

The essay structure mostly depends on the type of paper that you are writing. In the case of an animal testing argumentative essay, your main task is to defend a point that you propose as your thesis statement. For better understanding, we are going to explain some of the most common types of claims, with the help of which you can formulate an appropriate statement worth a professional academic assignment.

The first one is answering a question about whether some idea is true or not. In an argumentative essay on animal testing, for example, you can answer the question if animal testing indeed harmful for any animal or some of them still remain useful for humanity and relatively safe for animals.

The next claim that you can use in your essay could be this: what do some definitions that you choose mean? In an essay like this, you can examine animal testing in laboratories for cosmetic or for pharmaceutical companies. What do they do with animals? How ethical is that?

Another type of thesis statement claim focuses on value. You can highlight it in your argumentative essay against animal testing. It literally answers the question of how important this topic is. Animal rights have become quite a burning issue over the past few decades because, according to ASPCA, a significant level of testing of medications that appeared to be safe for animals, caused a harmful effect on humans, or in better cases were just ineffective. In this regard, another burning question is the following: is animal testing relevant for further investigations in the field of the pharmaceutical industry? The same goes for an argumentative article on animal testing. At that point, you can also claim that according to the applicable law, a medical drug, to be approved for national and worldwide selling, has to be tested on no less than 10,000 humans.

It is useful to write your ideas on little pieces of paper when preparing to formulate an animal testing argumentative essay outline and rearrange them on the table until you have perfect logical order. For example, by showing the proper facts, data, statistics, and references from authoritative sources, you can lead to the point that animal testing in too many cases results in false conclusions about the safety measures of medicine constituents.

Another type of argument is focusing on policy. After proposing the thesis statement of an essay on using animals in research, you can lead to the point of assuming what strategies could be applied to resolve the problems revealed as a part of researches using animals for the experiments. In many of these types of claims, you can use the deployment of the subject throughout history to make your evidence even more showing. For example, if you are writing an argumentative essay on animals being used for research, you can start with a notion that, in Middle Ages, for example, people widely exploited animals because this was the only way to survive, and they didn’t really care neither about animal rights nor about the excessive number of humans dying from diseases as a result of the lack of hygiene and means of security. However, centuries have passed, and our civilization has chosen another way of development. The first recorded organization that had an intention to fight for animal rights was the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in England, established in 1824. If you live in the USA, you can also examine the current laws that are applicable to the issue of animal testing, and that would be the Animal Welfare Act passed by Congress in 1966, with an amendment in 1986, which you can view as a law that needs revising again, as the 21st century gains traction. It is also useful to prepare animal rights debate questions in advance in case if you have to defend your point in front of the class and your professor. Don’t forget to prepare the most persuasive answers to possible questions and memorize or at least write them on small pieces of paper. The structure of an animal cruelty argumentative essay doesn’t differ from most of the other types of essays. What’s important here is to keep the debate going. This method is also widely used for another kind of essay, which could be called animal testing debate essay, and it would focus mainly on the debate of two opposing points of view rather than on proving your statement based on other scholars’ conclusions.  After formulating your thesis statement, it is time to create an outline and to start writing the first part of your paper – the introduction. Ideally, it should contain a so-called hook statement. This idea should be slightly different from the clear and persuasive thesis statement that indicated directly what you mean and why you think it should be considered credible. An animal testing essay hook must immediately draw the attention of your prospective reader so that they want to immerse in reading your essay till the very end. This could be a witty rhetorical question that sets the scene for the main statement before you address it, or it could be a timely quote to think about or an intriguing idea that, most likely, no one has thought about the way you propose it until now.

Animal rights essay introduction and body

When writing an animal rights essay introduction, you have to present the information in such a way that your audience will be interested in continuing reading your paper. Besides, this section should gradually lead your reader to the thesis statement, which has to be relevant and to the point. Remember that you shouldn’t use valuable arguments that you have collected before body paragraphs of your animal testing controversy essay. Your main task in this part is still presenting a good thesis statement, which you will have to reinforce with arguments in the body of your essay.

The next thing you have to think about is body paragraphs. A conventional academic essay typically consists of three to five body paragraphs. Each of them should have a traditional structure, which is simple to follow step by step, whether you are writing why should animals have rights essay or any other type of argument related to this topic. Any body paragraph starts with a topic sentence. These sentences represent the main idea of this part and act as a transition from one argument to another. After this, you have to introduce the sub-argument that you planned to discuss in this section when creating an essay outline. After the topic sentence and the following section are introduced, you can develop your argument further on.

The next thing to do in an academic assignment like animal experimentation essay is to reinforce your argument by using some evidence and examples. Supportive evidence like facts, statistics, and references from authoritative literature pieces might all be used for proving that your point of view is valid. Finally, at the very end of your body paragraph, it’s time to summarize everything that you have written in this section. At this point, you need to strengthen your defendable claim and supporting evidence stated above with a persuasive final statement. In other words, try to answer the question: why was this point so important and relevant?

Animal testing essay conclusion

After you are done writing all of your body paragraphs, it’s finally time to write the last part, which is the animal testing essay conclusion. With this final point, you can either prove your thesis statement is right or fail with it, so we recommend you to be exceptionally patient when working on this part. Note that basic principles of how to write an essay conclusion can be applied to practically all types of papers, including animal rights argumentative essay. You can divide your conclusion into some parts. In the first sentence, you have to rephrase the central message – your thesis statement. The difference between this sentence and your thesis statement in an introduction is that now you are completely sure that the presented idea is true because you have just proved your rightness. In the following few sentences, you can briefly repeat all the sub-arguments that you have stated before. In the end, the best way to finish your essay is to add the concluding thesis about animal testing. This one can represent some universal truth, hold an interesting idea, or give some food for thought to your readers.

Persuasive essay on animal testing

When deciding on what approach to focus on when writing an animal testing persuasive essay, you are probably wondering how a persuasive essay is different from the argumentative one. In this case, you have to remember that writing a persuasive essay, you employ principles of morality and emotional influence to argue the stated point of view. In this type of assignment, you have a chance to appeal to your reader’s emotions and not to eliminate your own for the sake of a rational viewpoint. Your purpose, in this case, is to influence people through their emotional reactions and feelings. Even though, don’t forget that you are still writing an academic assignment and your essay or your persuasive speech on animal testing should remain perfectly logical, contain strong evidence as well as opposing views. Keep in mind that any persuasive speech should contain a call to action. Social messages like stop animals abuse make an excellent topic for such speech. Your ultimate goal to achieve when writing a persuasive essay on animal testing is to convince your readers that your point is valid and to encourage people to take action towards resolving the problem that you highlight. Imagine yourself being a lawyer or a head of an animal rights activist organization. What line of reasoning would you choose to attract random people to join your movement? It is also important to picture a portrait of your readers because the whole structure of an assignment like animal cruelty persuasive speech depends on them. So determine your target audience and don’t forget to maintain awareness of their possible biases; that would help you to structure a perfect counter-argument to any probable objections. So as you can see, writing animal cruelty persuasive essay is quite a challenging task, so do your best to come up with a high-quality text that can really change people’s attitudes. Just make sure that your arguments are strong enough to persuade even the biggest skeptics. Before you start writing, we recommend you to look through persuasive essay topics about animals that your professor had provided or to find them on the Internet. You will be surprised how well-developed this subject is. Of course, you need to find a particular topic of animal abuse persuasive essay that will appeal to you. By doing that, you will be able not only to stay motivated and finish the essay way before deadlines but also to choose the right audience unmistakably. Useful advice is to look for the emotional link that connects you and your audience. For example, this could be the fact that you are a pet owner, or one of your older relatives was treated by a medicine, which was tested on animals, and it was proved to be ineffective. There are thousands of stories like this, and almost anyone can find them relatable. You should also think about the strong opening phrase that will help you to grasp the attention of your reader. The easiest way to come up with an idea for the part that is called ‘the attention grabber’ is to be familiar with the subject and to care about this problem. For example, in the should animals be kept in zoos persuasive essay, you are encouraged to appeal to people’s emotions, as we remember from the explanations above, but you also should not forget about morality and logical reasoning of the question that you want to discuss. As a result, you can start with a memory of your childhood when you went to the zoo. How animals looked there? What did they do? How visitors reacted to them and how they reacted in return? Did animals look happy and healthy? The answers to all of these questions might not appear positive. Use these memories to picture the life of the animals in captivity. You can also highlight your ideas with the extensive research that you have performed.   Some students prefer to write an outline after they jot down the first draft of their essay, especially if it’s a relatively short three-paragraph assignment. Some of them even look for animal testing essay titles after they finish working on the text of the essay. However, it is up to you to decide on which stage to write an outline or a title, and there is no solely successful formula. Moreover, you can even add the introduction and the conclusion at the very end of your writing, but if you feel inspired by the topic that you have chosen, it will be quite effective to write an introduction right from the start, before you write your actual animal abuse assignment.

Animal rights research paper

Writing an animal rights research paper might not be the most challenging assignment during your studies because this subject has become a touchy topic for recent years. Almost all the people inevitably love animals; that’s why it is essential to question out morality norms in terms of our actions towards innocent creatures whose lives sometimes fully depend on us. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said — ‘You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed.’ Animal rights movement research paper has a very traditional structure similar to those we described earlier in sections about persuasive and argumentative essays. By the way, you can either choose an argumentative or analytical paper to write. The main difference between them lies in the ultimate goal of your writing. The argumentative paper focuses on some very controversial topic, and it looks much like a debate between two opposing points of view. At the same time, an analytical research paper has a more rational than persuasive approach. In a paper like the latter, you are allowed to gather as many references as you want, and they don’t have to oppose each other. You may compare them, but your main goal in this essay would be searching for the truth. When writing assignments like a research paper on animal abuse, the research itself becomes the most important part of your work. There can be multiple sources of information about animal testing, animal rights, animals bred in captivity, etc. You can go the traditional way and collect valuable and authoritative information to make your strongest points with it. The sources could be academic databases that can be found online. You can also visit the library at your university.

Of course, the Internet search is boundless, and you can also find valid sources from any location in the world, which expands your perspectives for writing a persuasive animal cruelty research paper a lot. You will find various articles, blog posts, news posts, encyclopedias, historical documents, web pages, books, and interviews. However, make sure you use no less than five authoritative sources in your research paper. When looking through the non-scholarly sources of information like blog posts, videos, and web articles, check whether they are unbiased and trustworthy.

After you collected the information, it might seem daunting to sort it all out and write a perfect academic paper. Don’t worry, you can do it! Just divide your work into easy steps. For example, the first thing to do after your research is to organize the sources of your animal abuse research paper. For example, use small colored slips of paper to recognize different kinds of sources. It is also useful to stick to each of them little papers with notes of what you find important in this reference and why, what idea you want to develop on the basis of this document, etc. Don’t forget to construct a bibliography list for your paper. It is exceptionally quick and easy to do if you have organized your references the way that is described here. Now you can also come up with a good title for animal testing essay. Your title should be intriguing but at the same time informative for your readers.

Now it’s time to take a few more steps of preparation for the actual writing of your paper. The next thing to do is to develop your animal testing research paper outline. When you have all your notes organized, you won’t spend much time and effort on this stage. Just remember to familiarize yourself with formatting guidelines that you are required to follow. Most of the types of formats are used for specific fields of study, so make sure that the norms and rules that you want to use are approved by your university or school. Only after you know how you should format your paper, you can create a relevant outline and move on. After this, it’s time to formulate an animal testing essay thesis. Make sure it clearly represents your idea without stating any references yet. A good way to shape your thesis statement is to pose it as a question or as a persuasion. For example, it could sound like ‘Should animal testing be prohibited in the USA?’ or ‘Animal testing should be prohibited.’ Both options are right; you just have to show the argument in a necessary light since all of your sub-arguments and counter-arguments throughout the whole paper will revolve around your thesis about animal testing. Before getting down to writing body paragraphs, you can make it easier for you and highlight the most important turning points that you will be discussing. Note that one pivotal point should not be necessarily deployed in a single paragraph. You can complete your idea in one section, but you can also develop it through a few paragraphs. Just make sure to keep the thesis statement as the ultimate point of your paper. Even if you are writing controversial animal rights vs medical research paper, which is simple to follow because you are only describing two of the contradictory views in relation to each other, keep in mind that you should maintain your focus straightly on the essay topic. Keep an eye on your animal rights essay outline, and don’t let your thoughts wander, especially if you’ve collected a lot of evidence and sources. It might be a good idea to spend some time relaxing. After this, you can reread what you have already written and get some fresh ideas. Surprisingly, you might suddenly find that some points need further elaboration, whereas some of them have to be cut down or eliminated. You might also want to make your language sound more professional and academic, even if you’ve chosen a very modern and up-to-date topic like the research paper on animals in zoos. In this case, we recommend you to swap some of simple, casual words into brainier ones! Also, it’s important to make your direct quotes as concise as possible. Even if the piece that you found seems over the top relevant in your given context, it will look more professional if you avoid inserting too long citations. When writing an animal testing should be banned essay, don’t forget to save your witty thoughts for transitional sentences between the paragraphs, because they should link the two separate sections together and make your animal protection essay look more cohesive and logically explained.

Now, the best way to emphasize the importance of your findings is to write a strong conclusion for your animal rights assignment like an essay on animals for research purposes. When writing a conclusion, you need to restate the thesis statement with more confidence and to briefly remind the reader of all the major turning points that you covered throughout the whole essay. It’s a good idea to write an essay conclusion right after you finish the body paragraphs because your evidence remains clear in your mind. Ultimately, at the end of an assignment, when you have already proved your thesis statement against animal testing, try to answer the question ‘So, what?’ to create memorable and convincing final sentence.

Animals in captivity essay

An ongoing debate about breeding and keeping animals in enclosed spaces like zoos and circuses intensifies each day. That is why writing animals in captivity essay is extremely in demand right now as it is interesting both for knowledgeable and general audience. The trick with this theme is that there is no actual right or false statement. Both kinds of arguments, let’s say, for and against keeping animals in zoos, sound realistic and to the point. Let’s discover some of the most popular statements on this topic. Animal rights activists view zoos and circuses like hell for animals. They rely on the emotional state, questioning what would you feel if you have been trapped in the cage for a lifetime and used for entertainment. Such an approach that appeals more to people’s feelings on this subject is more appropriate to adopt for should zoos be banned essay. Moreover, activists keep saying that wild animals suffer in enclosed spaces because they cannot do what’s natural for them like hunting for food. If you are writing should animals be kept in zoos argumentative essay, you should focus on more objective evidence both for and against keeping animals in captivity, which we will continue discussing further on in this section. Another argument against zoos is that by watching animals living in zoos, we can’t learn anything about their life in the wild. When writing a zoos ethical essay, you can use this argument as an opposing viewpoint to the one that suggests that zoos are created for educational purposes. Furthermore, a piece of supportive evidence against zoos could be the fact that only 2% of the world’s 6000+ endangered species are breading in the enclosure. This means that zoos are functioning mainly for making money, and they don't help threatened species to stay alive in safer conditions than in the wilderness. Most zoos also provide improper care like cramped spaces and faulty diet for animals. An opposing idea on this topic for an argumentative essay on zoos lies in the fact that its proponents view the problem from a totally different perspective. Those who support animals being in captivity insist that zoos are the safest places for breeding and keeping animals that could be endangered otherwise. In the wilderness, the small population of some species could be fully exterminated because other animals would eat them. Another case is that lots of people keep hunting wild animals, killing them for food, fur, skin, and horns. Animals should not be kept in zoos argumentative essay could also be supplemented by the idea that smaller animal exhibitors like roadside zoos and petting zoos keep animals in improper conditions. Sometimes a lion lives his whole life in a barren of concrete with metal bars on the sides or in a small cage. But even if the conditions of accredited zoos create a space for lions and bears that resembles their natural habitat, animal activists question if mankind has a right to confine animals for science, education, and entertainment. Finally, we are going to discuss the most popular and widespread opposing arguments that support keeping animals in the zoos, which will help you to collect the solid evidence for your cruelty against animals essay, to formulate an appropriate thesis statement and to build a strong line of reasoning around it. As we have already mentioned before, keeping animals in zoos helps people develop an appreciation for animals and become educated more about wildlife. As a result, by watching how they live, children and adults gain the understanding that it is immoral to kill these animals for fur and food, and it is much better to help them grow and live in peace. Furthermore, if you watch people who are working in zoos, you can see how much effort they put into keeping animals healthy. It requires bringing them the food they like, cleaning and nursing them, helping to bring up babies, and sometimes even doing surgeries. Moreover, large zoos also deploy programs of rescuing the endangered species by looking after them in a safe environment free from predators and starvation. They also have specific breeding programs that help to grow the number of threatened species. However, to support this argument when writing an assignment about animals in captivity, you should perform extensive research to prove that these programs really function and that they help to save species. It is great if you can bring some statistics on the number or percentage of saved animals due to these programs. You can also choose are circuses immoral essay to explore the question of keeping animals in circuses for entertainment. The largest organization fighting for animal rights PETA suggests that circus shows are the cruelest on Earth, mentioning the UniverSoul circus in particular. They say that lots of species there have to suffer from transportation as well as forced training and performances. The trainers whip lions if they don't obey their commands. These people train elephants to perform uncomfortable tricks like standing on their heads, and if they fail to do this, they get beaten by sharp metal billhooks until they bleed. Besides, these animals have to live in small cages. During transportation, they have to wait in small trailers for days. An elephant Heather at King Royal Circus even died in one of such trucks from heat exhaustion. While animals are isolated from everything natural for them like playing, running, breeding, searching for food, and defending their territory, they develop abnormal behaviors like head-bobbing and constant pacing. Some of them attempt to run away, mutilating people and damaging property. For example, an elephant named Tyke was killed when she ran away from Circus International of Honolulu, Hawaii. We strongly recommend adding this argument in your why animals should not be used for entertainment essay.

So now you know how to approach a paper on such a controversial and sore topic. Just remember that when writing an essay like this, try not to get overwhelmed with emotions, be logical and perfectly rational until the very end to defend your point and propose the right solution to the problem. 

Your email address will not be published / Required fields are marked *

Try it now!

Calculate your price

Number of pages:

Order an essay!

Fill out the order form

Make a secure payment

Receive your order by email

Exploratory Essay Topics

Exploratory essay is a popular assignment that is given both in schools and colleges. This is definitely not the easiest type of paper, but generally speaking, writing such an essay is still not that…

23rd Nov 2019

Prompts For Creative Writing

Considering the ideas for creative writing, you get an opportunity for self-expression and self-disclosure. Writing such type of essay is important as it assists in developing creativity,…

26th Dec 2018

Presentation Topics

Imagine that you need to deliver your message to a big number of people. How to make your speech more effective? In this way, presentation comes in handy. Presentation is an effective tool for a…

14th Oct 2018

Get your project done perfectly

Professional writing service

Reset password

We’ve sent you an email containing a link that will allow you to reset your password for the next 24 hours.

Please check your spam folder if the email doesn’t appear within a few minutes.

📕 Studying HQ

Argumentative essay topics about animals, rachel r.n..

• September 10, 2022
• Essay Topics and Ideas

Looking for a good argumentative essay topic about animals? You’re in luck! We’ve put together a list of 20 topics that will get you started.

Argumentative essay topics about animals can be divided into three categories: animal rights, animal welfare, and animal testing. Each one of these topics could be argued from multiple perspectives.

Animal rights is the belief that animals should have the same basic rights as humans, including the right to life and liberty. Animal welfare is the view that animals should be treated humanely and with compassion, and that their well-being should be given consideration. Animal testing is the use of animals in scientific experiments to further our understanding of health and disease.

All three of these topics are controversial , which makes them perfect for an argumentative essay. So without further ado, here are 20 argumentative essay topics about animals!

What You'll Learn

Thirty Argumentative Essay Topics about Animals

1. Zoos are inhumane and should be banned. 2. Animal testing is cruel and should be outlawed. 3. Pets should not be allowed in public places. 4. Service animals should be exempt from laws banning animals in public places. 5. Hunter education should be mandatory for all hunters. 6. Trapping should be banned because it’s inhumane. 7. Fur coats should be banned because of the cruelty involved in obtaining the fur. 8. The exotic animal trade should be banned because it’s cruel and often results in the animal’s death. 9. Animal hoarders should be required to get help for their mental health issues and have their animals seized. 10. It should be illegal to breed dogs for physical characteristics that cause them health problems.

11. Puppy mills should be outlawed because of the inhumane conditions the animals are kept in. 12. Animal fighting should be banned because it’s cruel and often results in the animal’s death. 13. The use of animals in entertainment should be banned because it’s cruel. 14. Factory farming should be banned because of the inhumane conditions the animals are kept in. 15. Animals should not be kept in zoos because it’s cruel and they’re often not able to live a natural life. 16. It should be illegal to hunt animals for sport because it’s cruel and often results in the animal’s death. 17. The use of animals for research should be banned because it’s cruel and often results in the animal’s death. 18. It should be illegal to buy or sell ivory because it contributes to the poaching of elephants. 19. It should be illegal to buy or sell endangered animal parts because it contributes to the decline of those species. 20. The ownership of exotic animals should be banned because it’s cruel and often results in the animal’s death

Twenty Argumentative Essay Topics on Animals to Write About

1. Is it morally wrong to keep animals in captivity? 2. Should the hunting of animals be banned? 3. Is it cruel to declaw cats? 4. Should there be a ban on bullfighting? 5. How does the animal welfare movement impact the lives of animals? 6. Is it morally wrong to eat meat? 7. Should more be done to protect endangered species? 8. What is the impact of zoos on animals? 9. How do humans benefit from keeping animals in zoos? 10. Are factory farms cruel to animals? 11. What is the impact of animal testing on human health? 12. Should the use of fur be banned? 13. What are the benefits of having a pet? 14. How does animal agriculture impact the environment? 15. What is the relationship between humans and animals? 16. How does our treatment of animals reflect our values as a society? 17. Do we have a responsibility to care for all animals, or just those that are cute and cuddly? 18. How can we make sure that all animals are treated humanely? 19. What are some ways that people mist

Animal topics for research papers

There are many different animal topics that you can choose to write about for your research paper. Here are some ideas to get you started:

1. Animal testing: Is it necessary? 2. The pros and cons of zoos 3. Are exotic animals good or bad pets? 4. The link between animal abuse and domestic violence 5. How do we define “humane” treatment of animals? 6. Should there be more regulations on the breeding of animals? 7. The impact of climate change on wildlife 8. How humans can coexist with dangerous animals 9. The ethical debate surrounding the consumption of animal products 10. Are there alternatives to using animals for research purposes?

Animal topics for essay

There are many different animal topics that you can choose to write about for your essay . Here are some ideas to get you started:

-The pros and cons of keeping animals in captivity -The ethical considerations of animal testing -The impact of human activity on endangered species -The complex social hierarchies of animal societies -The fascinating world of animal communication -The incredible adaptability of animals to changing environments-The unique and important role of animals in ecosystem

You can also check out :

How Many Sentences Are in a Paragraph

Creative Narrative Essay Topics

Creative Synthesis Essay Topics

1 Step on how to write an introduction for an argumentative essay

Find out more  Capstone Project Ideas for Nursing Leadership [50 Topics]

check out  130+ Good nursing capstone project ideas to Write About )

As you continue,  thestudycorp.com  has the top and most qualified writers to help with any of your assignments. All you need to do is  place an order

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Have a subject expert write for you now, have a subject expert finish your paper for you, edit my paper for me, have an expert write your dissertation's chapter, popular topics.

Business Analysis Examples Essay Topics and Ideas How to Guides Nursing

• Nursing Solutions
• Study Guides
• Free College Essay Examples
• Privacy Policy
• Writing Service 
• Discounts / Offers 

Study Hub: 

• Studying Blog
• Topic Ideas 
• How to Guides
• Business Studying 
• Nursing Studying 
• Literature and English Studying

Writing Tools  

• Citation Generator
• Topic Generator
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Maker
• Research Title Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Summarizing Tool
• Terms and Conditions
• Confidentiality Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Refund and Revision Policy

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty. 

Contact Us:

📧 [email protected]

📞 +15512677917

2012-2024 © studyinghq.com. All rights reserved

Animal rights Pacifism

• Published: 25 May 2021
• Volume 178 , pages 4053–4082, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Blake Hereth   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9338-0417 1  

657 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The Animal Rights Thesis (ART) entails that nonhuman animals like pigs and cows have moral rights, including rights not to be unjustly harmed. If ART is true, it appears to imply the permissibility of killing ranchers, farmers, and zookeepers in defense of animals who will otherwise be unjustly killed. This is the Militancy Objection (MO) to ART. I consider four replies to MO and reject three of them. First, MO fails because animals lack rights, or lack rights of sufficient strength to justify other-defensive killing. Second, MO fails because those who unjustly threaten animals aren't liable or, if they are liable, their liability is outweighed by other considerations (e.g., a strong presumption against vigilante killing). I then argue both of these fail. Third, MO succeeds because animal militancy is permissible. Fourth, MO fails because there aren't liability justifications for defensive killing in general (i.e., pacifism is true). I argue that there's thoroughgoing epistemic parity between the Militancy View (MV) and the Pacifist View (PV), and that two considerations favor PV over MV. First, because under conditions of uncertainty, we should believe rights-bearers retain rather than lose their rights, which PV affirms and MV denies. Second, because PV is intrinsically likelier than MV to be true since PV at worst affirms wrongful letting die and MV at worst affirms wrongful killing, the latter of which is intrinsically harder to justify than the former.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Comment: Animals in ‘Non-Ideal Ethics’ and ‘No-Deal Ethics’

Are We Smart Enough to Know When to Take the Political Turn for Animals?

Is there a Rawlsian Argument for Animal Rights?

Though as Abbate ( 2015a ) powerfully shows, the nature of the justification for defensively harming nonhuman animals isn’t clear.

My argument, which I lack the space to develop fully here, is that mere failure to assist can make one liable to defensive harm. Here’s why: If you fail to help someone under threat of unjust harm H when you could reasonably do so (i.e., when it’s feasible and at little cost to you), then you share responsibility for the fact that H isn’t no longer a threat to that person, which entails that you are responsible for the fact that H is still a threat to that person, which entails that you bear some responsibility for the fact that the threat imposed by H is maintained . Since the threatened person has a reasonable claim against you that you not maintain threats, you are liable to defensive harm if you fail to help them when you reasonably could. Moreover, since you can’t be liable for acting permissibly and since every act is either permissible or impermissible, it follows that you acted impermissibly. Thus, you have an obligation to assist them resulting from a claim they have against you—which is identical to a right to assistance. For similar views, see Aas ( 2021 ) and Hanser ( 1999 ).

For more on a Militancy-Objection-style argument for the permissibility of abortion, see Tollefsen ( 1997 ). See also Kaczor ( 2015 : 220). For a powerful reply, see Williams (2021).

The full story can be viewed here: https://abc13.com/man-arrested-after-doorbell-cam-captures-dog-being-choked/6182160/ .

For an extended defense of this view, see Gunasekera ( 2018 ): 93–102.

An anonymous reviewer objects that the necessity condition isn’t satisfied. After all, the activists might discharge their obligation to rescue nonhuman animals by pursuing effective forms of nonviolent activism. This reveals two applications of the necessity condition: whether violence is necessary to save some animals and whether it’s necessary to save these animals. I have stipulated that violence is necessary to save these animals in the Zookeeper case and cases like it, but perhaps this misfocuses the moral problem (and its solution). I disagree. Suppose I encounter a human child about to be brutally murdered. I can either kill the unjust aggressor and save the child, or I can donate to Oxfam and save one child’s life, but I can’t do both. (Perhaps the donation window is closing at Oxfam and ‘rushed funds’ are needed to save a child by day’s end.) Surely I am at least permitted to save the child about to be brutally murdered, which is all the permission thesis requires. The necessity condition is satisfied for the same reason under the assistance thesis , though then we must adjudicate between competing rights to assistance. If donating to the Animal Legal Defense Fund saves some animals whereas killing Nour saves these animals, we might look to lesser-evil considerations to resolve the impasse. If the impasse is theoretically unresolvable and our obligation to assist can be discharged equally well under either action, then there’s no obligation to save some animals over these animals (or vice-versa), thereby ensuring that the necessity condition is satisfied under either course of action under the assistance thesis .

Think, for example, of naval personnel who utilize dolphins to identify mines, or ground forces which utilize canines and other animals to detect explosives. Similar arrangements are made by police personnel (e.g., K-9 units).

I say “perhaps” since poachers are less likely to be viewed favorably under commonsense moral views.

Abbate considers a case in which a human man hikes on a wilderness trail where grizzlies are known to roam. He comes across a grizzly, the grizzly growls, and the man fatally shoots the grizzly. Abbate describes this case as one in which the hiker engaged in and is responsible for risk-taking activities which resulted in a foreseeable violent conflict. Because the risk-imposition is non-reciprocal—that is, because “the hiker could have stayed home” and “the bear cannot be expected to just ‘stay in his den’”—the hiker is liable to defensive harm to an extent that the grizzly is not. Thus, the hiker, and not the grizzly, should bear the brunt of the ensuing harm. See Abbate ( 2015a : 122–124).

Cf. Ebert & Machan ( 2012 ). Ebert and Machan focus on a distinct objection, which they call the Predation Objection. According to this objection, the animal rights thesis implies that agents have a duty to defend animals from predation by other animals, which they claim is absurd. In the course of defending this objection, they note that since Regan denies that there is a duty to defend animals from such predation on the grounds that animals are ‘moral patients’ and therefore cannot violate rights, it follows that it is impermissible to harm or kill animals in defense of humans. They then claim such a view also implies that if, for example, a wolf attacks a human and the human responds with violent self-defense, it is permissible to harm or kill the human in defense of the wolf’s rights. This is notable for two reasons. First, it shows that the animal rights thesis pro tanto justifies animal rights militancy. Second, it portrays this implication as problematic. Under my formulation of the Militancy Objection, however, the assistance thesis explicitly restricts the scope of the right to defensive assistance to averting unjustified harms, which excludes the harms posed by nonhuman animals (and, for that matter, even human animals) who lack moral agency. For a fresh revisitation of this topic, see Abbate ( 2020 ). Notably, Abbate claims there is sometimes a moral obligation to harm some animals to prevent intolerable injustices to other animals.

See also McMahan’s objection to Judith Jarvis Thomson in McMahan ( 2002 : 398-421). Thomson assumes for argument’s sake that fetuses have strong rights and argues that abortion is nevertheless often permissible. McMahan replies that such a strong view of rights implies that a third party can permissibly defend fetuses under immediate threat of abortion.

Speciesists will doubtlessly defend an asymmetry here, contending that human slaves are importantly different from animals, such that ascriptions of rights are not undermined by the permitting of widespread violence in the case of slaves but are undermined in the case of animals. But that’s just to offer a distinct objection to the animal rights thesis .

I assume internalism about defensive liability merely for the sake of argument. According to internalism, Threat is liable to be harmed only if harming Threat would be necessary to avert some harm, narrowly proportionate, etc. In other words, these requirements are ‘internal’ to liability; someone isn’t liable without meeting the requirements. For more on this distinction, see Frowe ( 2014 : 88–89 and 91–94).

For an insightful critique of Regan’s conclusions about the Lifeboat Dogs case, see Abbate ( 2015b ).

Cf. McMahan ( 2016 ).

Notably, McMahan ( 2002 : 420) condemns animal rights militancy for these reasons.

This example is a more described variant of an example given in McMahan ( 2005 ).

For those keeping track of the math, that’s a combined 40 years for the elderly pedestrians and another 80 years for Driver. Since imposing 80 years of lost life is twice as bad as imposing 40 years of lost life, preventing the latter by causing the former appears to violate narrow proportionality.

Gordon-Solmon ( 2017 : 127, fn. 8) suggests that responsibility is internal to, or necessary for, narrow proportionality. I’m assuming the same is true of degrees of responsibility with respect to what counts as narrowly proportionate (or disproportionate) in a given case.

Nozick ( 2013 : 41) claims it’s impermissible to inflict slight discomfort on a human in order to spare 10,000 animals from extreme suffering. Nozick makes this claim as an example of what we’re forbidden to do to non-liable parties. He makes no claim about what we may do to liable parties, such as Nour. The same is true of Regan in his comments on the Lifeboat Dogs case: He claims no amount of animal sacrifice is disproportionate, but he fails to consider liable parties like Nour whose interests are discounted.

There may be other ways of denying or weakening the animal rights thesis . I lack the space to explore them here.

Any plausible moral theory on which the animal rights thesis is true will condemn Nour’s actions, since her actions would be morally comparable to someone guarding a prison filled with humans who will shortly be unjustly killed.

It’s thus an assumption of the diminished liability approach that it’s impermissible to defend human slaves even if pacifism is false. As I argue below, this is false. Slaves are permitted to defend themselves with violence, if anyone is.

Kaufman ( 2010 ) develops a similar case against the view that it’s impermissible to harm innocent aggressors in self-defense. Cf. Kaufman ( 2009 : 78-9).

A stronger variation of the vigilante principle might be that such violence is permissible only if it would be unlikely to bring about worse injustices. On this interpretation of the moral requirement, a mere lack of a positive likelihood is insufficient. What’s needed is a negative likelihood (i.e., an unlikelihood). Thus, in cases where the probability of bringing about greater injustices hovers at 0.5, or where there is no better reason to believe that greater injustices will be brought about than that they won’t be, it’s wrong (on the stronger vigilante principle ) for third parties to engage in defensive violence.

Or, per the above footnote, it’s unlikely to bring about worse injustices.

Might B mistakenly believe that employing x will prevent z ? No, because (per Uniacke’s stipulation) B knows that x won’t prevent z . Imagine that B used something else he believed wouldn’t help him successfully defend against z , like singing opera. If B sang opera, would he be employing it as a defensive measure? The answer, it seems to me, is that he obviously wouldn’t be.

This implication, too, strikes me as counterintuitive. John Brown fought in defense of slaves, acting more or less precisely as Rowlands envisions. It seems to me that if pacifism is false, then Brown surely acted permissibly.

A war in defense of mistreated animals might in some ways be easier to wage permissibly than a war in defense of slaves. Concerns about wide proportionality, for example, would be less of a concern, since there were millions of slaves but billions of abused animals. This will effectively permit a larger number of non-liable persons to be (unintentionally) killed, since the number of animals who would be saved would be considerably larger.

If the vigilante principle did condemn animal rights warfare in Canadian War , it would also condemn the war waged by the Northern States in American Civil War , which is implausible.

Kagan ( 2019 : 255) signals an openness to this view. For the fuller discussion, see 252–258.

Perhaps we should distinguish between posing a threat and aiding a threat. But even if we do, aiding a threat is surely going to entail liability to defensive harm, at least when one aids a threat in a morally responsible way, as Nour does. For example, perhaps only Assassin threatens to kill you with a gun, but I hold you in place for the kill shot. Moreover, perhaps I am unaware that Assassin is acting wrongly in doing so—for example, perhaps I mistake Assassin for a police officer doing their duty.

See, for example, section 3.2 where the solipsist and the person uneducated about human rights provide examples of appeals to ignorance. It seems to me that both persons are culpably ignorant because two reasonable pro tanto reasonable expectations are that individuals recognize that there are sentient individuals distinct from themselves and that it’s impermissible to harm such individuals without a sufficiently good reason. It also seems to me that neo-Cartesian views of animals are false and obviously so, or at the very least that it’s reasonable to expect most humans to recognize animal sentience since we think it’s reasonable to hold most humans morally and legally responsible for animal abuse. However, I can’t defend these positions at length here. These disputes are somewhat peripheral, however, since it seems permissible to harm the convinced solipsist whether or not they are culpably ignorant. The same, therefore, will be true of the lookout, Nour, certain animal researchers, and so on.

Someone is liable to harm just in case you would not wrong them by harming them. Thus, even if you harm a liable individual and thus don’t wrong them, you might in doing so still wrong someone else , and thus it might be impermissible to harm the liable individual. Moreover, even if it’s permissible to harm someone, it doesn’t follow that they’re liable to be harmed. For example, it might be permissible to harm them as an unintended side effect of preventing some immense harm. For more on distinction between liability and permissibility, see Frowe ( 2014 : 188).

Hadley’s appeal to factors like contributory causation appear to commit him to the view that it is the number of liable individuals that generates the counterintuitive nature of the Militancy Objection. Indeed, in his abstract, he refers to the problem as the Multiple Inappropriate Targets Problem. Whereas Hadley and I differ in our interpretation of the problematic nature of the Militancy Objection, our interpretations are not incompatible. Moreover, Hadley’s concerns appear to overlap with a similar problem in the broader literature on the ethics of self-defense. See Hadley ( 2009a : 168). For more on the more general problem, see McMahan ( 2011 : 24).

Here’s an objection: Militancy doesn’t permit us to kill all of these people (or people in comparable professions), since doing so would in many cases be disproportionate to the harms they threaten to impose on animals. For example, some animal researchers neither kill nor physically injure animals. At most, they imprison animals. Killing those animal researchers to free the imprisoned animals, then, would be objectionably disproportionate. But this objection fails for two reasons. First, the objection relies on the dubious assumption that killing (for example) kidnappers is objectionably disproportionate. It isn’t at all obvious that human abductees aren’t permitted to kill their kidnappers if doing so is necessary to escape. Second, the objection assumes that the intuitive implausibility of the militancy view is restricted to its moral implications for killing, but that’s false. Suppose that Nour was guarding not animals who will soon be killed but animals who will soon be tortured, and that in order to rescue them it’s necessary to torture Nour. The view that Nour is liable to such harm is again counterintuitive.

If pacifism is true, is anyone liable to defensive harm? As I pointed out in footnote 59, liability doesn’t entail actual permissibility (and nor does actual permissibility entail liability). By implication, impermissibility does not entail non-liability. Thus, even if pacifism entails that assault is always impermissible, it doesn’t follow that no one is liable to defensive assault.

Does pacifism falsify the Permission Thesis? As stated, the Permission Thesis merely claims that there’s a third-party permission to defend animals. Typically, invoking a permission to other-defense is a way of invoking a permission to other-defensive assault . On that reading, pacifism falsifies the Permission Thesis. However, since there are substantive ways of defending others that do not involve assault, it seems that pacifism does not rule out every form of other-defense, and thus is compatible with a broader interpretation of the Permission Thesis.

F.B.I. (2014). URL:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime

The number also reflects only crimes that actually occurred , and thus excludes attempted but unsuccessful violent crimes.

This criticism is from Narveson ( 2003 ), who argues that pacifists “have too many friends” and “terrorists” (which I’m calling “militants”) “have too many enemies.” On Narveson’s view, terrorism is wrong as a conceptual matter, since it condones the targeting of noncombatants who are not liable to defensive (or offensive) harm. Again, the worry here is not that the sheer number of persons liable to be defensively harmed is too many, as if there were some numerical threshold above which there is no liability to defensive harm. Rather, the worry is that these people don’t seem to be liable to defensive harm at all, and since the militancy view implies otherwise in so many cases, it gets the wrong judgment in an immense number of cases.

Helen Frowe (in conversation) objects that the epistemic par isn’t apparent. She concedes that there might be epistemic parity ‘downstream’, at the level of applied cases, but denies that there’s epistemic parity ‘upstream’, at the level of broad principles and ethical theory. Sometimes we use the independent plausibility of cases to determine the plausibility of moral theories and principles, and sometimes we use the independent plausibility of moral theories and principles to guide us through hard cases. Frowe claims we should rely on the independent plausibility of liability, like we did with the Burning Barn case in section §2, to guide us through hard cases like Zookeeper . Once we do, militancy will be the more plausible view. I can’t offer an extensive reply here, but I’ll offer one reply. Where militancy and pacifism part ways is at the crossroads of liability, and so (unless we’re to beg the question against either view) we need to look elsewhere for an independently plausible moral theory or principle that advantages militancy. Where might it be? So far as I can tell, the sort of ‘pre-liability’ moral story of the militancy view is the very same moral story as pacifism: Both accept that Nour and the pigs have rights, that there’s a pro tanto obligation against transgressing them, and so on. But if that’s true, then the epistemic parity appears thoroughgoing : There’s intuitive parity downstream with liability, and there’s parity upstream due to identical background moral assumptions.

For her reply to the Taxpayer Objection, see Frowe ( 2014 : 209–212).

That is, assuming my arguments in Sect. 3.1 are successful.

Here’s another objection: Our background knowledge also tells us that the human aggressor is aggressing unjustly , which is reason enough to prefer militancy over pacifism. But the objection fails because knowing that someone acts unjustly isn’t sufficient to know they’re liable to defensive harm or that it’s permissible to kill them. For example, I might know that you acted unjustly by failing to pay someone what you owed them, but I don’t thereby know that you’re liable to defensive harm or that it’s permissible to kill you.

It’s unclear to me whether this is logically distinct from the claim that killing is intrinsically worse than letting die. Rachels ( 1986 ) compares two examples in which you either drown your cousin or let him drown. He affirms both are impermissible but denies one violation is intrinsically worse than the other. Quinn ( 1989 : 289) argues that even if Rachels is right that neither violation is worse than the other, it doesn’t follow that the permissibility thresholds are the same.

This is a modified version of Singer’s ( 1972 : 231) classic case.

Cf. Tadros (2011: 252). Thomson (1971: 52) defends the stronger view that if even your bodily liberty is at stake, such that it’s necessary for you to remain plugged into a violinist for nine months to save his life, that’s sufficient to justify not saving his life because the cost to you is too great.

For similar cases and discussion, see Frowe ( 2014 : 51–71).

The distinction has been defended extensively elsewhere. For defenses, see Hill ( 2018 ), McMahan (2009: 94), Kamm ( 2007 : 17), and Quinn ( 1989 ).

Aas, S. (2021). Vital prostheses: Killing, letting die, and the ethics of de-implantation. Bioethics, 35 (2), 214–220.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abbate, C. E. (2020). Animal rights and the duty to harm: When to be a harm causing deontologist. Journal for Ethics and Moral Philosophy, 3 (1), 5–26.

Google Scholar  

Abbate, C. E. (2015a). The search for liability in the defensive killing of Nonhuman animals. Social Theory and Practice, 41 (1), 106–130.

Abbate, C. E. (2015b). Comparing lives and epistemic limitations: A critique of regan’s lifeboat from an unprivileged position. Ethics and the Environment, 20 (1), 1–21.

Ebert, R., & Machan, T. R. (2012). Innocent threats and the moral problem of carnivorous animals. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29 (2), 146–159.

Fischer, B. (2016). What if Barren and Klein are right about insect sentience? Animal Sentience, 9 (8), 1–6.

Francione, G. L. (2000). Introduction to animal rights: Your child or the dog?  Temple University Press.

Frowe, H. (2021). The duty to save and the duty to minimize harm. In S. David, V. Peter, & W. Steven (Eds.), Oxford studies in political philosophy. (Vol. 7). New York: Oxford University Press.

Frowe, H. (2014). Defensive killing . Oxford University Press.

Gardner, M. (2016). The interspecies killing problem. In E. Mylan & L. C. Gary (Eds.), The moral rights of animals. (pp. 119–140). Lanham: Lexington.

Gordon-Solmon, K. (2017). Self-defense against multiple threats. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 14 (2), 125–133.

Guerrero, A. A. (2007). Don’t know, don’t kill: Moral ignorance, culpability, and caution. Philosophical Studies, 136 (1), 59–97.

Gunasekera, C. A. (2018). The ethics of killing ‘Surplus’ zoo animals. Journal of Animal Ethics, 8 (1), 93–102.

Hadley, J. (2009a). Animal rights and self-defense theory. Journal of Value Inquiry, 43 (2), 165–177.

Hadley, J. (2009b). Moral responsibility for harming animals. Think, 22 (8), 51–55.

Hadley, J. (2009c). Animal rights extremism and the terrorism question. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40 (3), 363–378.

Hadley, J. (2006). The duty to aid Nonhuman animals in dire need. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23 (4), 445–451.

Hanser, M. (1999). Killing, letting die, and preventing people from being saved. Utilitas, 11 (3), 277–295.

Hill, S. (2018). Murdering an accident victim: A new objection to the bare-difference argument. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96 (4), 767–778.

Kaczor, C. (2015). The ethics of abortion: Women’s rights, human life, and the question of justice . (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Kagan, S. (2019). How to count animals, more or less . Oxford University Press.

Kamm, F. M. (2007). Intricate ethics . Oxford University Press.

Kaufman, W. (2010). Self-defense, innocent aggressors, and the duty of martyrdom. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 91 (1), 78–96.

Kaufman, W. (2009). Justified killing: The paradox of self-defense . Lexington Books.

McMahan, J. (2016). The comparative badness for animals of suffering and death. In T. Višak & R. Garner (Eds.), The ethics of killing animals. (pp. 65–85). Oxford University Press.

McMahan, J. (2011). Killing in war . Oxford University Press.

McMahan, J. (2005). The basis of moral liability to defensive killing. Philosophical Issues, 15 (1), 386–405.

McMahan, J. (2002). The ethics of killing: Problems at the margins of life . Oxford University Press.

Mikhalevich, I., & Powell, R. (2020). Minds without spines: Evolutionary inclusive animal ethics. Animal Sentience, 29 (1), 1–25.

Narveson, J. (2003). Terrorism and Pacifism: Why we should condemn both. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17 (2), 157–172.

Nozick, R. (2013). Anarchy, state, and utopia . Basic Books.

Quinn, W. S. (1989). Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of doing and allowing. The Philosophical Review, 98 (3), 287–312.

Rachels, J. (1986). Active and passive Euthanasia. In A. Ethics (Ed.), Peter singer. (pp. 29–35). Oxford University Press.

Regan, T. (2004) [1983]. The case for animal rights . University of California Press.

Rosen, G. (2002). Culpability and ignorance. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 103 (1), 61–84.

Rowlands, M. (2002). Animals like us . Verso Press.

Rowlands, M. (1997). Contractarianism and animal rights. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 14 (3), 235–247.

Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs , 1 (3), 229–243.

Statman, D. (2008). On the success condition for legitimate self-defense. Ethics, 118 (4), 659–686.

Tollefsen, C. (1997). Donagan, abortion, and civil rebellion. Public Affairs Quarterly, 11 (3), 303–312.

Uniacke, S. (2014). Self-defense, just war, and a reasonable prospect of success. In H. Frowe & G. Lang (Eds.), How we fight. (pp. 62–74). Oxford University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Williams, J. (Forthcoming). on anti-abortion violence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research X.X: 1–24.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Massachusetts, 883 Broadway St, Dugan Hall, Suite 200, Lowell, MA, 01852, USA

Blake Hereth

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blake Hereth .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This paper was graciously awarded the 2019 Frank Chapman Sharp Memorial Prize for the best essay on the ethics of war and peace. My thanks to Helen Frowe, Seth Lazar, Suzanne Uniacke, Holly Lawford-Smith, Jeff Sebo, Nathan Nobis, Mylan Engel Jr., Cheryl Abbate, John Hadley, Chris Cuomo, Paul Tubig, Karen Emmerman, Michael Blake, my students at the Washington Corrections Center for Women, and an anonymous reviewer at this journal for feedback and helpful conversation. Thanks also to those present at the 2017 Society for the Study of Ethics and Animals Inaugural Workshop at the University of Colorado, the Stockholm Center for the Ethics of War and Peace Graduate Reading Retreat at the Australian National University (Kioloa campus), and the invited symposium “Animal Rights Terrorism and Pacifism” at the 2017 APA Eastern Division Meeting in Savannah, Georgia. Shortly thereafter, on 22 February 2018, the paper was featured on the Blog of the APA. My thanks to the APA for featuring it and for those who commented.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hereth, B. Animal rights Pacifism. Philos Stud 178 , 4053–4082 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-021-01636-x

Download citation

Accepted : 26 March 2021

Published : 25 May 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-021-01636-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Animal rights
• Militancy objection
• Self-defense
• Other-defense
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Skip to Main Content

• My Assessments
• My Curriculum Maps
• Communities
• Workshop Evaluation

Share Suggestion

"zoos and animal welfare" argumentative/persuasive writing.

"Zoos and Animal Welfare" Argumentative/Persuasive Writing

Grade levels, course, subject.

• Printer Friendly Version

Apply the appropriate models to show interactions among organisms in an environment.

CHANGE AND CONSTANCY

Explain mechanisms organisms use to adapt to their environment.

Describe how selective breeding and biotechnology can alter the genetic composition of organisms.

Compare and contrast observable patterns in the physical characteristics across families, strains and species.

Explain why the extinction of a species may occur when the environment changes.

Explain that mutations can alter a gene and are the original source of new variations in a population.

• Big Ideas Purpose, topic and audience guide types of writing
• Concepts Focus, content, organization, style, and conventions work together to impact writing quality Persuasive writing attempts to influence the audience by presenting an issue and stating and supporting a position. Various types of writing are distinguished by their characteristics
• Competencies Persuasive Writing: Develop substantial, relevant and illustrative content that demonstrates a clear understanding of the purpose (content). Persuasive Writing: Employ a thoroughly elaborated argument that includes a clear position consistently supported with precise and relevant evidence where rhetorical persuasive strategies are evident (content). Persuasive Writing: Employ effective organizational strategies and structures, such as logical order and transitions, which develop a controlling idea (organization). Persuasive Writing: Use proper conventions to compose in the standard form of the English language (conventions). Persuasive Writing: Write with a sharp, distinct controlling point made about a single topic with evident awareness of task and audience (focus). Persuasive Writing: Write with precise control of language, stylistic techniques, and sentence structures that create a consistent and effective tone (style). Write persuasive pieces, specific to a purpose and audience, which have a clearly stated position or opinion, with convincing and properly cited evidence that anticipates and counters reader concerns and arguments. Write to influence the audience by:• stating and supporting a position with detailed evidence, examples, and reasons. • using persuasive techniques (e.g.: emotional appeal, statistics, description, anecdote, example, expert opinion) to strengthen the argument. • employing a distinct structure to organize the argument and the opposing viewpoints. • acknowledging and refuting opposing arguments. • evaluating sources for validity, perspective, bias, and relationship to topic.• documenting sources of information responsibly and ethically. • using sources to achieve a balanced and authoritative argument. • supporting judgments with relevant evidence and detail. Write to influence the audience by:• stating and supporting a position with detailed evidence, examples, and reasons. • using persuasive techniques (e.g.: emotional appeal, statistics, description, anecdote, example, expert opinion, analogies and illustrations) to strengthen the argument. • employing a distinct structure to organize the argument and the opposing viewpoints. • acknowledging and refuting opposing arguments. • evaluating primary and secondary sources for validity, perspective, bias, and relationship to topic. • documenting sources of information responsibly and ethically. • using sources to achieve a balanced and authoritative argument. • supporting judgments with relevant evidence and detail. • presenting the position in either a deductive or an inductive framework. Focus, content, organization, style, and conventions work together to impact writing quality

Description

The Literacy Design Collaborative teaching task provides a blueprint for seamlessly integrating literacy and content standards in a rigorous, authentic classroom experience. After determining the discipline, course, and grade level, educators use teaching tasks built around predefined template prompts. The teaching task requires students to read, analyze and comprehend written materials and then write cogent arguments, explanations or narratives in the subjects they are studying.

Students will examine the zoo as a facility in which animals are confined within enclosures and displayed to the public. In many cases, animals may also be bred to produce offspring. Although enjoyed by many, some feel zoo conditions are detrimental to the health of animals. Students will explain and support their opinion as to whether or not animals should be kept in zoos.

In this extended writing task, students will read, analyze, and gather relevant information from text(s) and write an argumentative essay. Students will…

• Apply knowledge of the distribution and management of natural resources to a current issue
• Apply knowledge of the relationship between an environment and extinction to a current issue
• Read, analyze and gather relevant information from multiple texts
• Write an evidence-based argumentative essay, and address competing views

enclosure - something that "closes" a space

welfare - a condition of being or doing well

conservation - protection from extinction

zoochosis  - obsessive, repetitve behavior associated with animals kept in prolonged captivity

extinction - dying out or termination of a species. Occurs when a species can no longer reproduce at replacement levels

endangered species - a species existing in such small numbers that it is in danger of becoming extinct

500 minutes/10 periods

"Animal Ark or Sinking Ship?" BornFree.org . Born Free Foundation, July 2007. Web. Apr. 2011. < http://www.bornfree.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/files/zoo_check/ publications/Animal_Ark_or_sinking_ship.pdf >.

Dixon, Thomas. "Zoos: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions." IDEA: International Debate Education Association - Debate Resources & Debate Tools. 06 Apr. 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2011. < http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=1 >.

Horton, Jennifer. "Are Zoos Good or Bad." HowStuffWorks.com . 15 Sept. 2008. Web. Apr. 2011. < http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/zoos-good-or-bad.htm >.

Lin, Doris. "Should Zoos Keep Endangered Species?" About.com . The New York Times Company. Web. Apr. 2011. < http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/a/EndangeredZoos.htm >.

Van Tuyl, Christine.  Zoos and Animal Welfare . Detroit: Greenhaven, 2008. Print.

Related Materials & Resources

Suggested instructional strategies, instructional procedures.

Teacher Preparation Prior to launching the teaching task in the classroom, a teacher should consider the following questions:

How much support will students need to successfully complete the task?

What parts of the process can be completed independently (during or outside of class)? What parts of the process represent new learning or substantial challenge and warrant direct instruction or guided practice during class?

What content and vocabulary instruction and activities will be provided so that students are able to successfully complete the task?

How will reading be scaffolded for my students? (Read together? Read in groups? Read independently?)

What note-taking method will students use, and does that method align with the writing task?

How will students make the transition from the reading to the writing? (outline, graphic organizer, etc.)

What writing instruction is needed to help students write their thesis statements, organize their notes, embed quotes, and cite evidence?

How will students receive feedback at various stages of the writing process to make sure they are answering the prompt, their papers are focused, their ideas are fully developed with details, examples, etc.?

Daily Plan The daily plan is flexible based on students' prior knowledge, experience and skills in reading, research and writing as well as their ability to apply subject area knowledge to a new scenario. The amount of time, in class instruction, and scaffolds needed can be increased or decreased to provide the appropriate level of challenge and support for students.

Teaching Task 2 (Argumentative/Analysis L1, L2): Should animals be kept in zoos? After reading informational texts, write an essay that addresses the question and support your position wiht evidence from the text(s). L2  Be sure to acknowledge competing views.

Task Engagement and Analysis The teacher introduces the teaching task to students by linking the task to the class content that has been taught previously and to existing knowledge, skills, and interests. The teacher asks students to read the teaching task and make notes or discuss with peers things they already know about this issue or topic.

The teacher helps the students to understand the expectations of the teaching task by asking students what they think a good response to the task might include and creating a classroom list. The teacher may share examples of the type of texts the students will produce (either actual student samples or commercially published texts). Sharing the rubric with students will clarify the expectations. (Clicking on each performance level of the rubric will enable teacher access to annotated student writing for that level.)

The teacher explains the timetable and supports available for completing the task.

Text Selection The teacher has either preselected the texts or will provide access to research sources for students to select texts. The teacher asks students to begin to record information about the sources (e.g., using notebooks, note cards, technology). The teacher may need to provide models or instruction on creating a bibliography or works cited. The students should identify author, title, publisher, date, and any other needed information (e.g., volume, editor) A discussion about the credibility or merit of sources may be needed.

Preview texts The teacher can provide students with all of the texts or offer students a list of acceptable sources from which to choose. The teacher briefly highlights each text with a summary to assist students in making appropriate text selections. The teacher asks the students to skim through each text to identify the genre, purpose, and text structure. A teacher think-aloud explaining rationale for making certain text selections may be beneficial to students.

Note-taking The teacher provides or suggests that a note-taking method be used that is consistent with the expectations for the task and the type of writing (e.g., argumentative-pro/con t-chart). Students should be encouraged to refer to the teaching task so that their notes are relevant to the prompt. Students should be encouraged to include both textual information and their own connections and implications. Students should continue to add to their bibliography or works cited.

Teachers may need to teach or reinforce practices to promote academic integrity and to help students avoid plagiarism. The ability to use and credit sources appropriately shows respect for the work of others and adds credibility to a student's argument and/or research.

Reading and Research The teacher assigns the reading, research and note-taking to students and provides instruction to support analysis and synthesis of texts. The teacher may ask students to reflect orally or in writing on key questions including:

Which parts of the text provide evidence that relates to the prompt?

What historical or current examples did you notice that relate to the prompt?

What is the text explicitly saying? What gaps or unanswered questions do you see?

What competing arguments have you encountered or thought of based on the text (argumentative)?

How do you know your sources are credible?

Depending upon the needs of students in the classroom, additional scaffolds may be necessary (e.g., whole-group reading and teacher modeling of note-taking, paired in-class reading, talking to the text, small group discussion). The teacher may either provide students with print source options or make electronic texts available to them through the use of Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Wikis, Nings) or online library databases (e.g., EBSCO, ProQuest).

Transition to Writing The teacher uses discussion based strategies such as the Paideia/Socratic seminar or small group discussions to help students make connections between their research and notes and the teaching task.

Developing a Thesis or Claim Students write an opening paragraph that includes a controlling idea and sequences the key points that will be made throughout the writing assignment. The teacher may provide models of opening paragraphs and analyze them with the class. Students may provide feedback to each other on their opening paragraphs. Students should compare their opening paragraph to the teaching task and assess whether the paragraph fully address the main points of the prompt (e.g., define and explain, compare, take a position, etc.)

Organizing Notes/Planning Students organize their notes into a graphic organizer or outline that establish a logical structure for the assignment. An outline begins with the thesis or claim, sequences key points and includes supporting evidence from texts.

Development of rough drafts Students begin writing their rough drafts. The teacher frequently checks in with students to answer questions, offer feedback, and provide writing instruction as needed. Through planning, the teacher embeds opportunities for students to receive feedback on their writing prior to the submission of the final draft either through peer conferencing, teacher conferencing, or written teacher feedback. Students revise their drafts based on the feedback they receive. The amount of time needed for the development of rough draft varies and may include time during and outside of class.

Completion of Final Draft Students either self or peer-edit their papers for conventional errors and complete the final draft.

Assessment and Reflection The teacher uses the LDC rubric to assess the students' writing and provide feedback to help students improve their performance. Patterns in student performance guide further instruction.

Analytic Scoring The rubric is structured to facilitate analytic scoring - the awarding of separate scores by readers for each of the seven scoring elements. Scorers should keep in mind that the description of work quality within any particular "cell" of the rubric may still address more than one idea, and therefore may not match a particular essay perfectly. The scorer must identify the descriptor that is the best match to a paper based on the preponderance of evidence. If the decision is truly a "coin toss," the scorer should feel free to use the "in-between" or "half" scores. A variation of analytic scoring might be used in a situation in which the emphasis of instruction at a particular time might be on a subset of the seven scoring elements. For example, if instruction is focused on development and organization, then a teacher might simply award scores for those two scoring elements.

Holistic Scoring Holistic scoring is assigning a single, overall score to a paper. Analytic and holistic scoring rubrics look much the same. The holistic scorer's job is to pick the single score (1, 2, 3, 4) that corresponds to the set of descriptors for scoring elements that best matches a paper. Again, in-between or half scores can be used. Ideally, holistic scorers are thinking about all the scoring elements as they read papers, but over time they find that they can assign holistic scores very rapidly, yet still fairly accurately. This is one of the advantages of holistic scoring. However, analytic information is not generated by this method.

Score Recording and Feedback It would be good practice for teachers to share the rubrics with students and discuss "criteria for success" relative to the scoring elements. However, it is not intended that a clean scoring rubric would be attached to every paper that is scored in all situations. It might be more appropriate to attach score slips that list the scoring element names with blank spaces after them for the recording of scores (and a space for a total score, too, perhaps). A customized rubber stamp could accomplish the same. Analytic scores do provide useful information to the students since they reference descriptors in the rubric. However, nothing beats descriptive comments that are best written in the margins of the papers where they are most appropriate.

Cut Scores for Proficiency Levels Scorers can readily compute a total score (the sum of the seven element scores) or an average score (that sum divided by 7). If translating scores to performance levels is desired, then the structure of the rubrics lends itself to the use of the following cut scores:

LDC Scores and Grades LDC scores could be translated to grades contributing to students' course grades. How this would be done is an individual teacher's decision. Teachers could establish their own cut scores for letter grades or just re-label the four performance levels as A, B, C, D. They could come up with their own way to convert LDC scores to numerical grades consistent with whatever numerical scale they use for other class work.

Click on each performance level below (Not Yet, Approaches Expectations, Meets Expectations, Advanced) to view annotated student samples.

Sean Houseknecht, Alex Shubert, Monica Cressman - Elizabethtown Area School District

Content Collections

Date published, insert template.

Are Zoos Ethical? Arguments for and Against Keeping Animals in Zoos

Zoos, if done right, could be a good thing for the animals and the public—yet many so-called zoos get it terribly wrong.

• University of Southern California

• Ohio Wesleyan University
• Brandeis University
• Northeastern University
• Animal Rights
• Endangered Species

A Brief History of Zoos

Arguments for zoos, arguments against zoos, the last word on zoos.

A zoo is a place where captive animals are put on display for humans to see. While early zoos (shortened from zoological parks) concentrated on displaying as many unusual creatures as possible—often in small, cramped conditions—the focus of most modern zoos is conservation and education. While zoo advocates and conservationists argue that zoos save endangered species and educate the public, many  animal rights activists believe the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits, and that the violation of the rights of individual animals—even in efforts to fend off extinction—cannot be justified.

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2500 BCE, when rulers in Mesopotamia, Egypt kept collections in enclosed pens.  Modern zoos began to evolve during the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, when scientific interest in zoology, as well as the study of animal behavior and anatomy, came to the fore.

Early zoos were a dismal affair. Animals were kept in small enclosures with little if any, greenery. With a scant understanding of what the various animals needed, many perished relatively quickly. In accredited U.S. zoos (and elsewhere) things are better now, fortunately. Primates, for example, have gone from barren cages with little furniture to naturalistic and sometimes semi-free-ranging designs. But is it enough?

• By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of other species.
• Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment, where they are protected from poachers, habitat loss, starvation, and predators.
• Many zoos have breeding programs for endangered species. In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding, and species could become extinct.
• Some zoos have conservation programs around the world that use the zoo's expertise and funding to help protect wildlife against poaching and other threats.
• Reputable zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are held to high standards for the treatment of their resident animals. According to AZA, its accreditation guarantees that the organization has undergone strict evaluation by recognized experts to ensure the highest standards of "animal management and care, including living environments, social groupings, health, and nutrition."
• A good zoo provides an enriched habitat in which the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.
• Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and more memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary and is more likely to foster an empathetic attitude toward animals.
• Some zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people no longer want or are no longer able to care for.
• Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes standards for animal care.
• From an animal rights standpoint, humans do not have a right to breed, capture, and confine other animals— even if those species are endangered . Being a member of an endangered species doesn't mean the individual animals should be afforded fewer rights.
• Animals in captivity suffer from boredom, stress, and confinement. No pen—no matter how humane—or drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild.
• Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals are sold or traded to other zoos.
• Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new baby animals leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold not only to other zoos, but also to circuses and hunting facilities. Some zoos simply kill their surplus animals outright.
• Some captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild. The offspring may be forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, and petting zoos.
• Removing individual specimens from the wild further endangers the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and may have greater difficulty finding mates. Maintaining species diversity within captive breeding facilities is also a challenge. 
• If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary. (A true sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but instead takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos, or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.)
• The federal Animal Welfare Act establishes only the most minimal standards for cage size, shelter, health care, ventilation, fencing, food, and water. For example, enclosures must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns." Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, does not necessarily ensure abused animals will be freed.
• Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. Likewise, people ignore warnings or accidentally get too close to animals, leading to horrific outcomes. For example, Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla, was shot in 2016 when a toddler accidentally fell into his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo. While the child survived and was not badly injured, the gorilla was killed outright.
• Petting zoos have been linked with numerous incidents of diseases including E. coli infection, cryptosporidiosis, salmonellosis, and dermatomycosis (ringworm).

In making a case for or against zoos, both sides argue that they're saving animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they certainly do make money. As long as there is demand for them, zoos will continue to exist.

Since zoos are likely an inevitability, the best way to move forward is to ensure that zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals that live in captivity and that individuals who violate animal care health and safety sanctions are not only duly punished but denied any future access to animals.

One day we may look back at zoos and marvel at their barbarity. Or, one day we may look back at zoos and be grateful for the species they saved from extinction. Of these two scenarios, only time will tell.

Hosey, Geoff, et al. Zoo Animals: Behaviour, Management, and Welfare . Oxford University Press. 2013.

Hosey, G. (2023). The History of Primates in Zoos . In: Robinson, L.M., Weiss, A. (eds) Nonhuman Primate Welfare. Springer, Cham.

“ Species Survival Plan Programs .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums.

“ Accreditation Basics .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums .

“ Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Meagher, Rebecca K., Georgia J. Mason. “ Environmental Enrichment Reduces Signs of Boredom in Caged Mink .” PLoS ONE , vol. 7, 2012, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049180

Kleiman, Devra G., et al. Wild Mammals In Captivity: Principles And Techniques For Zoo Management, Second Edition . University of Chicago Press. 2010.

Gunasekera, Crystal Allen. “ The Ethics of Killing “Surplus” Zoo Animals .” Journal of Animal Ethics , vol. 8, 2018, doi:10.5406/janimalethics.8.1.0093

Brichieri-Colombi, Typhenn A., et al. “ Limited Contributions of Released Animals from Zoos to North American Conservation Translocations .” Conservation Biology , vol. 33, 2019, pp. 33-39., doi:10.1111/cobi.13160

Krasnec, Michelle O., et al. “ Mating Systems in Sexual Animals .” Nature Education Knowledge, vol. 3, no. 10, 2012, p. 72.

“ 9 CFR § 3.128 - Space Requirements .” Cornell University Legal Information Institute .

“ Animal Welfare Act Enforcement .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Conrad, Cheyenne C. Conrad et al. " Farm Fairs and Petting Zoos: A Review of Animal Contact as a Source of Zoonotic Enteric Disease ." Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, vol. 14, 2017, pp. 59-73., doi:10.1089/fpd.2016.2185

• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• How Animal Rights Activists View Zoos Keeping Endangered Species
• 6 of the Saddest Zoos in the World
• Zoos and Endangered Species Conservation
• What Is a Puppy Mill? Why Are They Bad for Dogs?
• Arguments for and Against Humane Meat
• Park vs. Refuge: What's the Difference?
• Animal Cruelty in Circuses
• Overview of the Animal Welfare Act
• 20 Pygmy Animal Species From Around the World
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• What Will Happen to the Animals If Everyone Goes Vegan
• Expedia Stops Selling Tickets to Dolphin and Whale Shows
• Pet Tiger Seen Roaming in Houston Is Now in a Sanctuary
• Best of Green Awards 2021: Eco Pets
• What Is Sustainable Tourism and Why Is It Important?

Animal Testing Thesis Statement

Animal experimentation has been a controversial topic for many years. Some people believe that it is necessary in order to advance medical research, while others argue that it is cruel and inhumane.

There are pros and cons to both sides of the argument. On one hand, animal testing can be vital in developing new treatments and medications for diseases. Without animal testing, many life-saving drugs would not be available today. On the other hand, animal testing is often criticized because it can be cruel and inhumane. Animals in experiments are often subjected to pain and suffering, and sometimes they do not survive.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to support animal experimentation is a personal one. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue, and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe is right.

There has been a dispute between animal rights activists and scientists about the morality of using animals in laboratory testing. It is also contentious whether utilizing animals for such research aids in the discovery of cures. If there are no other options and if it is probable that this will advance medical research, I believe that animals may be used for experimental study.

Animal testing is the use of animals in experiments and development projects to determine the toxicity, efficacy or side effects of substances such as drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, vaccines and other products. In many countries around the world animals are still suffering in laboratories with little hope for relief. According to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), federal law regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers.

The AWA does not extend to birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, which together account for more than 95% of all animals used in research.(1)Animal Experimentation Up 80 Percent In Last Decade) There has been an increase in the use of animals in experiments, although the number of rats and mice used has decreased slightly.

While animal rights advocates argue that people and animals are equivalent, I believe that people and animals cannot be compared; as a result, the death of an animal can never be the same as that of a person. As a result, causing animals to die for science in order to save human lives may be considered ethical to some extent if it aids scientific progress and is beneficial to humanity in general.

Animal testing has been a controversial issue for many years. Some people believe that animal testing is cruel and inhumane, and that it should be stopped immediately. Others believe that animal testing is necessary in order to continue making progress in medical research.

There are pros and cons to both sides of the argument, but I believe that the pros of animal testing outweigh the cons. The main reason I believe this is because animal testing has led to significant medical advances over the years, and has helped save countless lives.

One example of how animal testing has led to a medical breakthrough is the development of penicillin. Penicillin is an antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections, and it was first discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming. Fleming’s discovery of penicillin was accidental; he was studying bacteria in a petri dish when he noticed that a fungus had contaminated the dish.

Fleming observed that the bacteria were not growing near the fungus, and he realized that the fungus must be producing a substance that was inhibiting the growth of the bacteria. He isolated this substance, which we now know as penicillin, and found that it was effective at killing bacteria.

Fleming’s discovery of penicillin was a major medical breakthrough, and it would not have been possible without animal testing. In order to test whether or not penicillin was effective at treating bacterial infections, Fleming injected it into mice. He found that the mice who were injected with penicillin survived, while the mice who were not injected with penicillin died.

This experiment proved that penicillin was effective at treating bacterial infections in animals, and it paved the way for further research into the drug’s effects on humans. In 1942, penicillin was used to treat a patient with a serious bacterial infection for the first time, and it was found to be effective.

Since then, penicillin has been used to treat millions of people with bacterial infections, and has saved countless lives. Animal testing played a vital role in the development of this life-saving drug, and without it, we would not have the medical advances that we do today.

Animal testing has also played a role in the development of vaccines. Vaccines are used to prevent diseases, and they work by causing the body to develop immunity to a particular disease.

The first vaccine was developed in 1796 by Edward Jenner, and it was used to prevent smallpox. Jenner observed that milkmaids who had contracted cowpox (a mild form of smallpox) were immune to smallpox. He vaccinate people with cowpox in order to give them immunity to smallpox, and his experiment was successful.

Since then, vaccines have been developed for many other diseases, including polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox. Animal testing has played a vital role in the development of these life-saving vaccines.

For example, the polio vaccine was developed in 1952 by Jonas Salk. In order to test whether or not the vaccine was safe and effective, Salk injected it into monkeys. He found that the monkeys who were injected with the vaccine did not develop polio, while the monkeys who were not vaccinated developed the disease.

This experiment proved that the polio vaccine was safe and effective, and it paved the way for further research into the vaccine. In 1955, the polio vaccine was declared safe for use in humans, and it has since been used to vaccinate millions of people around the world.

Furthermore, animal rights advocates accuse scientists of being ” barbarous” for causing animals to die in medical research, yet they do not object to people, particularly farmers, who kill animals for food. Even though they are aware that 99 percent of deaths are caused by farmers and only 1 percent by scientists, the reason for that is that they find scientists simpler to attack and have no strategy against farmers who are organized and powerful.

Animal testing has been a controversial issue for many years. Is it necessary? Does it save lives? These are the questions that people ask when they think about animal testing. Animal testing is the use of animals in experiments and development projects usually to determine toxicity, dosing and efficacy of test drugs before proceeding to human clinical trials (1).

Approximately 26 million vertebrate animals are used for research each year around the world (2). The animals used in research vary from mice and rats, which make up 85-90% of all laboratory animals, to larger mammals such as dogs, primates and farm animals.

The United States currently uses the most animals for research, with approximately 1.2 million animals used per year. This is followed by China, Japan, the United Kingdom and Canada (3).

Animal testing has been used for centuries to test products before they are made available to the public. It is only in recent years that animal rights groups have started to question the necessity of animal testing.

Animal testing is necessary in order to ensure the safety of products before they are made available to consumers. Without animal testing, many products would be released that could potentially be harmful to humans. Animal testing allows scientists to test the safety of products before they are used on human subjects.

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Related essays:

• Do Vaccines Matter
• The Anti-Vaccine Movement
• Animal Testing Should Not Be Banned
• An Objection to Mandatory Drug Testing in High Schools
• American Animal Testing
• Health Benefits Of Animal Testing Essay
• Essay On Stop Animal Testing
• Essay about Animal Testing Is Necessary
• Current Status of Malaria Vaccinology
• Animal Testing: The Differences In Human Life Essay
• The Pros And Cons Of The MMR Vaccine

What is a good thesis statement for animal rights?

Typically, asking a question is not a good form for a thesis statement . It is a statement after all. It is not a bad practice to use a thesis question to help focus your writing, but it should be edited out of the final draft. Avoid asking questions altogether in any essay unless it is purely a rhetorical question, and even then this strategy should be used sparingly.

For an essay on animal abuse, ask yourself what you want to discuss. Where do you want to take your audience? On what do you want to focus? Do you want to take an emotionally track or do you want to rely more heavily on statistics and hard data?

You might try this or something like it:

Thousands of pets are euthanized every year. People want companionship, and without much forethought, they run to the nearest pet store and buy the first puppy, kitten, bird, turtle, rabbit, chicken, or duck that catches their eye. They become instantly enamored with their choice of friend, but then the food dish gets kicked over, the first accident happens on their twenty thousand dollar carpet, the threads are torn from the couch, or the drapes are shredded. What then? Obviously the master was never intended to live like this, so only one option remains: death. This is the destiny of thousand, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pets lives every year.

There are quite a few topics that would make good thesis statements for animal abuse. One good one would be the effects of puppy mills. The topic dog fighting in America would make a good thesis statement.

read up on the subject, I have been told in every introduction to ask questions that you are going to answer within your essay. Good luck

Animals deserve rights, and these rights should annihilate one direction Zayn Malik lousy

There are quite a few good thesis statements for pro animal testing viewpoints. One thesis statement is 'Animal Testing Helps Improve Quality of Life in Humans'.

There are many good thesis statements for an essay regarding animal testing. One thesis statement may be 'The Effects of Animal Testing and Cosmetic Use.'

Animal cruelty is bad because God did not put them on Earth to be abused.

animals are inportant to society and testings are cruel. If you gain something you also WILL loose something.

Add your answer:

What is a good thesis statement on animal testing?

There are quite a few good thesis statements for pro animal testing viewpoints. One thesis statement is 'Animal Testing Helps Improve Quality of Life in Humans'.

What is a good thesis statement for The Communication Collapse?

What is a good thesis statement for the article "The Communication Collapse"

What is a good thesis statement for osteoporosis?

what is a good thesis for osteoporosis

What is a good thesis statement for crime scene investigator?

what is a good thesis statement for a crime scene investigator.

What is a Thesis statement on mlb vs NBA?

what is a good thesis statement on the NBA

What will be an appropriate closing sentence on animal testing?

WHats a good thesis statement against animal testing

Is this a good or bad thesis statement?

I would need to see the thesis statement in order to determine if it is good or bad.

What is a good thesis statement for the effects of school budget cuts?

What is a good thesis statement for a operating budget after adding a profitable new product

What is a good thesis statement about terrorism?

What is a good thesis statement for kkk, what is a good thesis statement on suicide, what is a good statement for malnutrition.

what is a good thesis statment for malnutrition?

Top Categories

Advanced essay writer

• How it Works
• Top Writers

Estelle Gallagher

Writing my essay with the top-notch writers!

The writers you are supposed to hire for your cheap essay writer service are accomplished writers. First of all, all of them are highly skilled professionals and have higher academic degrees like Masters and PhDs. Secondly, all the writers have work experience of more than 5 years in this domain of academic writing. They are responsible for

• Omitting any sign of plagiarism
• Formatting the draft
• Delivering order before the allocated deadline

Finished Papers

• Password reminder
• Registration