Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The other view is based on the animal rights position that animals should not be regarded as property and any use of animals by humans is unacceptable. Accordingly, some animal rights proponents argue that the perception of better animal welfare facilitates continued and increased exploitation of animals.
The Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) is a proposed inter-governmental agreement to recognise that animals are sentient, to prevent cruelty and reduce suffering, and to promote standards on the welfare of animals such as farm animals, companion animals, animals in scientific research, draught animals, wildlife and animals in recreation. [1]
Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. [2]
Animal welfare is concerned with the humane treatment of animals but does not oppose all uses of animals, while animal rights is concerned with ending all human use of animals. [73] The largest American animal nonprofit, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) , is an animal welfare organization.
The phrase "intrinsic value" (often used synonymously with inherent value) has been adopted by animal rights advocates. The Dutch Animal Health and Welfare Act referred to intrinsic value in 1981: "Acknowledgment of the intrinsic value of animals means that animals have value in their own right and as a consequence, their interests are no ...
They have been adopted internationally and endorsed by professional groups including veterinarians, [2] and organisations including the World Organisation for Animal Health, [3] the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, [4] and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. [5]
To account for these cases, animal rescue organization Best Friends considers a shelter “no-kill” when it consistently euthanizes no more than 10% of all the animals that come in the door.
The last question virtually assumes that they have equal rights with man. On the other hand, some can defend animal rights of a certain kind without including a prohibition of animal food. Then, independently of all questions of rights, others may insist on human conduct towards animals upon the grounds of man's duty to moral law in general. [3]