The extent to which animals should have rights is a very controversial topic. Opinions on it vary from those who believe animals shouldn’t have any rights, due to the fact that they think animals are incapable of thinking in a manner that corresponds to that of human thought, to those that wouldn’t even step on an ant due to their feelings towards an animal’s rights. I personally believe animals should have rights, to a certain degree; such as the rights to life, liberty, and security; but not the right to endanger other beings or like the right not to be eaten or smashed, depending on the animal.
There are people who believe very strongly in animal’s rights. Some believe so strongly they cut out certain foods or even food groups from their diets, such as vegans and vegetarians. Now it is indeed wrong to mistreat animals in order to derive food from them, but if animals are treated well before their inevitable demise; for example in the case of ‘happy cows’ that are mentioned in “Why I Eat Meat (And Why You Should, Too)”, by Jacky Hayward, to be feed a proper diet that can satisfy the nutritional needs of a cow according to their anatomical structure; then there shouldn’t be a problem with eating them.
Also some people who won’t even step on bug, and if they do they feel remorseful, since apparently; according to Tim Kreider the author of “On Smushing Bugs”; individually they are so pitiful.
This notion is completely ridiculous being that most bugs do nothing to benefit anything or anyone, so next time a spider swoops into your shower don’t pity it, smash it with the closest blunt object and if it’s still alive when it reaches the floor ‘finish him’. On the complete other end of the spectrum there are those who believe animals should not have any rights, some due to religious reasoning and others due to what can only be described as a superiority complex. For example, Gary Steiner; the writer of “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”; mentions that some religious people believe that due to their uncanny resemblance to God and animals oppositely not resembling said deity that humans are some sort of superior race while animals are solely here to satisfy humans without any moral dilemma. To say this argument is illogical would be an understatement because it’s completely founded on the belief that humans look like God, which is a horrendously audacious not to mention groundless claim since nobody’s ever seen God; nor has God even been proven to exist.
Also there is the fact that even if God definitely existed and humans did happen to resemble his likeness, why would that directly correlate to them being superior to animals in any way. Another example, is that humans for some reason believe that animals are intellectually inferior as mentioned in “The Animal Rights Debate” which is also another unproven fact only backed by humanities superiority complex that is seen to be exhibited not only towards other races, but towards other humans as well. Now while animal rights is an issue with a large amount of contentious opinions surrounding it, it’s possible to meet both sides half-way; and see that there are good points made by both sides. In order to do so though it’s necessary to also do the inverse and be able to identify the flaws in each side as well. So to be blatant eating meat is good and let’s all smash bugs, but don’t abuse animals for food or kick puppies ‘because animals have rights; not many; but they do have them.