Share
Explore BrainMass

Rights of nonhuman animals

Richard A. Posner argues that nonhuman animals have no basic rights while Peter Singer argues the opposing side. How can these two arguments be compared with their opposite points of view?

Solution Preview

Let's take a closer look at this interesting debates. I also located an excellent resource of Singer and Posner debating animal rights, which I attached.

RESPONSE:

1. Richard A. Posner argues that nonhuman animals have no basic rights while Peter Singer argues the opposing side. How can these two arguments be compared with their opposite points of view?

A. Animal-Rights Movement - diverse individuals and groups concerned with protecting animals from perceived abuse or misuse. Singer uses Utilitarian ethics to argue his case for that is wrong to hurt animals for food, when it is not necessary and he dismisses the ideas proposed by Posner and others that animals have no rights because they are NOT a member or the species Homo sapiens. He says it this ways:

"I have been arguing against the widely accepted idea that we are justified in discounting the interests of an animal merely because it is not a member of the species Homo sapiens. I have not argued against the more limited claim that there is something special about beings with the mental abilities that normal humans possess, once they are past infancy, and that when it ...

Solution Summary

Richard A. Posner argues that nonhuman animals have no basic rights while Peter Singer argues the opposing side. This solution discusses how these two arguments can be compared with their opposite points of view. References and a highly relevant supplementary article, a debate between Posner and Singer on the rights of nonhuman animals, are also provided.

$2.19