Hearne vs. Singer - Animal Rights

You would think animal rights would be a topic that most people could agree on; everyone believes animals have the right to a good life. But the authors of the two essays we read had different takes on what really defines the words, "animal rights."

According to Vicki Hearne:

Relationship with mutual trust between animal and owner  – suffering + happiness = Animal Rights

Hearne believes that animal rights are not created to prevent unnecessary suffering; they are created to create the possibility of happiness for animals. Happiness is a right, according to Jefferson: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and all animals have this right and need.

According to Peter Singer:

Treating animals like we treat humans = Animal Rights

Singer argues that we think we are allowed to treat members of different species in a way that is considered unacceptable to treat members of our own species. This is called "speciesism." Abuse of children and other humans is looked down upon, but animals are also abused. People have the right to not be abused, as do animals. 

Singer relates "speciesism" to racism and sexism, pointing out that it is no different.

Long story short? Animals rights aren't as cut-and-dried for everyone as you'd think they are. Some people (Hearne) believe that we need to understand the feelings of our animals, giving them a sense of personal achievement by allowing them room to grow and explore. Sounds like kids, right? She also feels that animal rights pertain to achieving happiness, not just ending suffering. Singer, on the other hand, believes that we need to stop the suffering of animals. We treat them in ways that would be considered cruel and unjust if humans were treated that way, and animals suffer like humans. But regardless of their different opinions on animal rights, Hearne and Singer both agree that animal rights are a problem.