Good critical responses (Animal rights)

#1 (Wang Li Rong-Passage 1)
Throughout the text, the author discusses reasons as to why animals do not need to be
granted rights to humane treatment. In his text, he illustrates his stand through pointing
out how animals dont satisfy the concept of rights because they do not have selfawareness or belong to some sort of social system whose values its members agree to
uphold. However, I strongly disagree with him. If we were to follow the writers stand,
shouldnt the mentally ill be subjected to such harsh treatment too? After all they arent
self- aware, do not adhere to social values and do not serve any purpose to our society.
However, such an ideology in this era would be shunned off completely, as seen from
the amount of criticism cast on Adolf Hitlers Action T4, a document which legalised
forced adult euthanasia for the mentally ill. I also disagree with the author because his
argument is merely a generalization of animals. Contrary to popular beliefs, some
animals are actually self-aware. An example of such an animal would be the
Chimpanzee; when put through a mirror test, use the mirror for self-directed responding
behaviors just like a regular self-aware human would. In addition to this, it has also been
pointed out by the Nonhuman Rights Project attorney Steven Wise, that They have
language, they have mathematics, they have material and social culture. They are the
kinds of beings who can remember the past and plan for the future. Showing they do
satisfy the authors notion of rights. Those capacities alone should grant them freedom,
however, many chimpanzees are still subjected to unethical biological experiments.
Therefore, we can tell that the authors argument that animals should not be granted
rights because they do not possess the self-awareness humans do is invalid.
The writer also points out that animal activity is instinctive and their feelings are
physical sensations and not emotional states such as we experience. However, I
disagree with his argument. Many animals have been shown to possess emotions.
Elephants, in particular, have known for their superior intelligence, complex social
systems, ability to feel empathy, and altruistic behavior. They have been observed to
grief over their dead loved ones, by staying beside their bodies for long periods of time,
refusing to move. In fact, elephants have to shown to cry from their eyes like a normal
human being when faced with grief. These expressions of grief arent instinctive, we
dont instinctively cry when we see a dead body, it requires a higher understanding of
love and emotions. Even with emotions similar to humans, elephants are still not treated
humanely, with many of them poached by humans for sport or for their tusks. Should the
writers stand be true, many animals that display any form of emotional understanding
should be granted animal rights. Therefore, we can tell once again that the writers
argument is invalid.
At the end of the text, the author states that no right-thinking person wishes to inflict
unnecessary pain on animals and that these actions are prompted by our own needs
However, I do not stand by it. Firstly, the author assumes that no right-thinking person
wishes to inflict unnecessary pain on animals however this does not justify the
mistreatment of animals in retail industries. An example of this would be the
mistreatment of rabbits in the makeup industry. Despite the availability of more modern,
humane, and effective alternatives, rabbits are still tormented in the notorious Draize eye
irritancy test, in which cosmetics are dripped into the animal's eyes, often causing
redness, swelling, discharge, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, or blindness, in

order to cut on production costs. What is more ridiculous about this is that this doesnt
even serve a purpose in our survival. However, it is not right either if we exploit animals
for our needs. We cant just drop all responsibility to provide animals the humane
treatment they deserve. Many a times we dont even need animals to lessen our own
discomfort. This could be seen from the biomedical industry, where an estimated of more
than 25 million vertebrate animals are used annually in research and testing in the
United States. Even though cutting-edge non-animal research methods are available
and have been shown time and again to be more accurate than crude animal
experiments.
In my opinion, I generally disagree with the writer. I find that his arguments are merely a
generalization of animals and animal mistreatment. I believe that as civilized primates
we should act like we make our self to be, sensitive to emotions. We must be empathic
towards these animals which have been sacrificing themselves since the birth of
humanity for our survival. We should try to cut down on all possible mistreatment of
animals by utilizing technology. An example of such an innovation would be the
discovery a way to grow the genetic equivalent of a nearly complete embryonic human
brain. Which could help researchers test drugs and other treatments that may help
prevent, fight and maybe even cure some of the most devastating disorders and
diseases of our time without the use of animals.
Score - 13m
Well argued, covering a range of points. Would do better with a more balanced view on
the need for trade-offs despite wanting to recognise animal rights. You have also left out
the major issue of food and livestock which would have made a more comprehensive
response if covered.

#2 (Niyanta Chowdury-passage 1)
The key issue of Passage 1 is that since animals are non-sentient beings, they do not
deserve the rights that humans do. The writer has illustrated this idea with the
comparison between a human moral community where human rights have been
collectively agreed on and the absence of a sentient decision-taking community in the
animal kingdom.
This is an important issue due to the fact that humans are not able to come to a
consensus on animal rights. Animal rights supporters want animal testing to be
completely abolished but what is not considered is that the progress of medical
knowledge will be greatly slowed down due to inaccessibility to live organisms. Animal
testing has propelled the medical communitys knowledge about human cardiovascular
systems, digestion, hormonal interactions among many others. I believe that a basic
rule of our evolution does apply here, along with the author. Survival of the human
species should be of utmost importance and thus testing of animals for new medicine
and research should be allowed if it is done in a justified way.
I do agree that since animals do not have the consciousness that humans do, they
cannot be given the same rights as humans have. This is because rights are granted on
the grounds of morality and if humans are the moral community for the animals, then
since animals do not act morally according to humans, then the same human rights
cannot be granted. Of course there are ambiguous areas in human rights as well when

issues like capital punishment are brought into question. If humans cannot be granted
the correct rights then how can we grant animals their rightful rights? Something I
would like to point out would be that since animals lack the capacity for free moral
judgements, once these rights are in place, who would protect animals from other
animals? Animals constantly violate rights against their own species. It would be absurd
to have a court of judgement and punish animals when what they do and the rights they
inevitably is based on instinct and not rational thought.
I do not agree with the author based on his intrinsic logic that it is always humans
against animals. It is not always a relationship of inexorable relationship of exploitation
from both sides. It has been seen in many cases that attachment may not be particularly
advantageous but humans and animals(clearly seen in pets) can have a familial
relationship with both pros and cons, yet sticking with each other. Humans are not
parasites to always look for their own benefits in other animals. For example, a loyal
dog named Kabang owned by a family in the Philippines came in front of car to save two
children. Even when the vets asked the family to opt for euthanasia, they did not and
paid a lot of money to save him. In this case, the dog saved humans and in return
humans saved the dog even though resources were spent.
Score - 12m
#3 (Ho Wan Xi-both passages)
The two passages present opposing views on animal rights. The first passage by Patrick
Kingsley takes on the stand that animals are merely lesser beings to be used as our
resource and do not have sufficient value to their being to attain rights like humans do.
Whilst the second passage by Tom Reagan takes on the stand that animals have
inherent value of their own and are deserving of equal rights as that of humans. I
personally agree more with the stand by Kingsley as in the context of todays society, it is
a more practical and realistic occurrence and form of thought in our society.
Kingsley writes that animals are not humans, suggesting that animals are not entitled
to equal rights of human beings, not being in a social structure like that of humans, to
which I agree. Rights are proclaimed based on what is accepted to be morally good by,
and for humans to uphold the idea of togetherness and a shared baseline equality
amongst the specie such that we can coexist with the variations of humankind. Rights,
are then specific to the species itself, and not that of all living beings. For instance, as
humans, the rights we form are based on empathy, like that of the want to live. As such,
murder of the innocent is illegal amongst humans, but for animals, they are driven by self
benefit. No lion would place a lion that killed the cubs of the banished head of his newly
conquered territory on trial, neither would they express condemnation.
He also states that the overriding principle guiding our treatment of animals must be
that of self interest, another point of which I agree to. Humans, as a species need to
ensure that we have the means to ensure our ability to secure our own survival, over
that of any other species. Our current acts of stripping animals of their rights, treating
them systematically as merely our resource is a way of reducing any potential damage
to the human race. This is a duty that we are all obliged to follow, to be more concerned
with those who are closest to you. To cause damage to humans over causing damage to
animals is simply impractical and would definitely be considered unacceptable by the

majority of the population. For example, when looking for test subjects for the earlier
stages of testing for commercial drugs, animals are more often used over humans. This
is because obtaining a dog or a monkey requires far less clearances, and financial
resources than signing off a human to take the risk of the side effects. Moreover, in
todays society, where human lives are deemed to be more precious than that of an
animals, it would cause outrage if loss of human lives were not prevented when possible
with the use of animals.
As for the second passage, Reagan states The fundamental wrong is the system that
allows us to view animals as our resources. I disagree to this point as I find this view
impractical in the context of our society. Humans depend heavily on animals for the
resources we need to thrive. For the longest time imaginable, humans have depended,
and currently still, depend greatly on animals to provide, and be our resource. The
ancient caveman used animals to provide him with tools and cover, the traditional farmer
uses his animals for agriculture, and in the modern day context, as our major source of
food. Using animals as our resource is an essential part in ensuring that our ever
growing demands are met, and it is impractical that we deem a necessity a wrong.
He also brings up the point that we do not deny equal human rights to humans with
deficiencies that cause for the general difference between humans and animals and
thus animals should be treated similarly too. I feel that this statement is not valid, as it is
based on an over simplistic understanding of what makes a human. We humans share
the same genetic make up, and we do not determine a a human by their ability to do
things, but by their relation to us of being part of the same species. This is why we do
not consider a dog, who learns to walk shortly after it is born to be of greater ability, and
thus higher importance than a human baby, who only learns to do so after half a year or
so. We give rights to humans for being humans, and not for their ability.
Score - 12m
Apart from para 2, which was totally unclear, and convoluted style at some junctures, the
rest of your response was actually pretty good, with several well thought through ideas.
A greater sense of balance would push your mark up further. How far should we stretch
the idea of self-interest and viewing animals as our resource before it becomes morally
wrong?