There is an argument in society whether animals should have rights or not. My position on this issue is that animals should have rights, because both people and animals seek values such as food and shelter to sustain their lives. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that "rights are derived from the capacity to experience pain, and since animals can experience pain just as people can, animals also have the right to be free from harm (Regan)." My opponent's position is that animals should not have rights, because "rights are derived from the capacity to reason, and thus people have rights and animals do not (Locke 35)." Animals have played a role in human society since civilization began. At first, animals were hunted for food, and their skins and bones were used for clothing, shelter and tools. Later, animals were domesticated and used as beasts of burden, for food and clothing, and eventually for many other purposes.
             John Mill, a philosopher, believes that justice is the highest principle of ethics. He thinks that "people are not to commit or permit injustice so that good may come, not even to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit (Regan)." Slavery allowed this. Child labor allowed this. Most examples of social injustice allow this. But not animal rights, whose highest principle is that of justice: "No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights, whether that other is a human being or some other animal (Regan)."
             Philosopher Dick Gregory thinks that animal rights are unprejudiced. He believes that "if people start thinking they are superior to animals, then they become no less prejudiced than racists or sexists (Regan)." Racists are people who think that the members of their race are superior to the members of other races, and sexists believe that the members of their sex are superior to the members of
             ...