In Brigid Brophy s essay, The Rights of Animals, there are some statements that I agree with and some that I don t. Unlike Brigid Brophy, I am not a vegetarian, nor would I ever become one, but I do believe that animals have certain rights. I feel that there is nothing wrong with killing an animal for food. Animals have been killing each other for food in order to survive since dinosaurs roamed the earth. Human beings, as we all know, are also animals. So how is it wrong for a person to kill an animal for food?
Many vegetarians and animal activists contradict themselves by trying to protect an animal from being killed for food, when in fact, the animal that they are trying to protect is also a meat eater that kills another animal for food. Why is it all right for that animal to kill for food, but not for a human to kill for food? There is no answer to that question. Food is a major part of survival on this planet and if it takes the death of an animal to survive then there is nothing wrong with killing it.
In Brophy s essay she writes, “If we are going to rear and kill animals for our food, I think we have moral obligation to spare them pain and terror. ” I agree with this statement very much. There is no reason to torture animals or put them through unnecessary pain. There are many ways to kill an animal without causing it any pain. I have two different feelings for hunting. I feel that if someone is hunting for food then there is nothing wrong with it. However, I don t feel that it is right to hunt and kill animals for fun or for competition.
Too many animals are killed each year by hunters that don t even eat the animals that they kill. Many hunters just cut the heads of animals off and stuff them so that they can hang them on their walls at home. Most hunters feel that it is an accomplishment to sneak up on a harmless animal such as a dear and shoot it. I don t understand how that is an accomplishment or how someone can feel like he has just become more of a man because he shot a harmless animal from behind. The least a hunter can do is let the animal see him before he shoots it.
At least the animal has a chance to avoid being shot. In most cases a man will never punch another man without some kind of a warning. So how is it all right for a man to kill an animal from behind? The answer is that hunters do not care for the rights of animals. I also feel that killing an animal for its fur is absolutely ridiculous. With today s technology, fabrics with a very similar texture and look as real animal fur can be made and sold for much less money than the real fur.
So why kill if you don t have to? If the artificial fur can fool almost anyone, then why pay the extra money for real fur? Some people care too much about themselves to care for the rights of animals. In Bridged Brophy s essay she writes that she feels it is wrong to take animals out of the wild and put them in circuses or zoos. I disagree with this because most of the animals today that are in zoos and circuses were not born in the wild.
I also feel that zoos and circuses help save wild animals because they bring people closer to the animals. If someone has never seen a tiger then why would that person care if tigers went extinct? I know I really wouldn t care much about an animal that I have never heard of or seen before. I think that if it wasn t for zoos or circuses then there would be a lot more wild animals being hunted and a lot less wild animals alive “I don t hold animals superior or even equal to humans.
The whole case for behaving decently to animals rests on the fact that we are the superior species. We are the species uniquely capable of imagination, rationality and moral choice, and that is precisely why we are under the obligation to recognize and respect the rights of animals” is a paragraph from Brophy s essay that sums up my whole essay. I think that since humans are the dominant species, then humans should be the species that look after and help any other species in need.