Animals Rights and Wrong by Rodger Scruton Essay Example

In his article "Animals Rights and Wrongs," Roger emphasizes on a central theme that animals do not possess rights as human and further says that, humans as moral agents can do both right and wrong to the animals. Ideally, animals should have the same rights as humans. They should be entitled to the possession of their own lives and some of their basic interest like not being subjected to suffering. I short; non-human animals should be given equal consideration, treatment and similar interest like human beings. This is because animals have their interest as human and this interest should not be subjected to discrimination by human beings. Hence the idea of animals being viewed as property, for consumption, clothing, research specimen and entertainment should no longer hold.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

However, this has not always been the case, animal rights critics such as Roger Scruton argue that animals cannot enter into social contract as human beings and therefore are not in a position to poses rights. Moreover, Roger further explains that it is only humans who are in a sole position to undertake duties and therefore they should be the ones who have rights as well. Another argument associated with the opposition of animal rights is based on the utilitarian tradition (Roger, 1998). Roger Scruton asserts that, animals at times should be used as resources so long as unnecessary suffering has not taken place; they may have some of the moral status but still maintain his position that animals are still inferior in status as compared to human beings and that, any interest they might pose may be overridden by humans.

Roger enjoys discussing the animal rights issue since he states that rights go in hand with duties, hence he says the "the corollary is inescapable" between human being and animals. He says for human beings to balance the rights they have to have duties and he says the concept of needs is not applicable to animals due to the following reasons which are still centered on duties and responsibility (Roger, 1998).

Human beings need the concept of responsibility and duties because without them existing there will be no check on human morals and behavior. He says that, human beings can use their privileges and rights to behave irresponsibly. However, he says that there cannot be such issue as an irresponsible animal in as much as they are in a position of overstepping the restrictions that nature has bestowed on them. He says there is no such circumstance where one can say the "Tiger is irresponsible" (Roger, 1998). While the concept of duties only applies to human beings due to their nature, Roger says there is no requirement in relation to the concept of rights to be limited to animals alone.

Conclusion

In summary, Roger justifies his position by saying "It is in humanity that the concept of rights is applicable and not in animals since animals cannot reason logically", hence human beings can use animals without consideration they give to fellow human beings and therefore animals do not have rights at all.

Work cited

Scruton, Roger. Animal Rights and Wrongs. London: Demos, 1998. Print. https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=FxY-sCM6XmwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=roger+scruton+animals+right+and+wrong&hl=sw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmgum91uTdAhUJJBoKHehbB1QQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=roger%20scruton%20animals%20right%20and%20wrong&f=false