If one takes a look at the relationship between the mankind and the natural world, one will be able to see that there are two contradicting points of view, one of which argues that people are allowed to do anything, regardless of consequences, while another one suggests that humans are a part of the environment and should accept the responsibility for the harm they do. This paper will argue that people all over the world should respect the right of animals for a safe live and not harm them.
To begin with, it would be important to analyze some of the key elements of thesis. Thus, the concept of right would result in the fact that that the government acknowledges that some actions are forbidden in relation to animals. In addition to that, the definition of an animal should include any organism, no matter if it is wild of domesticated. Finally, the idea of harm argues that people should not torture or kill animals in case it is not justified by other aspects. For example, slaughtering a pig that was bred for it is acceptable as it a part of ham production, but torturing any animals should be recognized as an unacceptable action. There is one more peculiar point that should be noted in particular: different cultures have developed their own attitude towards animals. Thus, for Europeans killing a pig or a cow is a matter of food production. On the other hand, the Hindu believe that a cow is a sacred animal, while Jews and Arabs point out that pigs are filthy and their meat is forbidden to be eaten by their religion. That is why while working out the position towards rights of animals, the humanity should agree on some kind of a unified vision of it.
Speaking of the arguments that are able to contribute to validity of the statement that was mentioned above one is able to mention quite a few. First of all, it is often thought that developing a special attitude towards animals that includes recognition of their rights reflects the humanistic values that are being promoted by the mankind. Secondly, in case people pay more attention towards live of animals, this will allow the former to contribute to finding harmony with the natural world. This is extremely important, keeping in mind the destructive impact that the activity of the people has had on the environment in the past few centuries. In other words, this will help people to reconcile with the environment and build a better and more productive relationship with it. Finally, if the right of animals for a safe life is recognized and enforced, it will surely result in the reduction of cruelty to animals which will have a positive impact on the levels of aggression worldwide. Indeed, many people may see animals as suitable target for their anger knowing that there is almost no punishment for harming them. Nevertheless, such practice only contributes to building up the amount of aggression in a person.
It must be noted that there are also arguments that oppose the need that is expressed in the thesis. To begin with, the opponents of the idea in question suggest that animals will not be able to understand the fact that the humanity decided to protect them and reduce aggression towards them. In other words, there is no need to perform any special actions for the benefit of the animals since they will not be able to comprehend the change. Secondly, the opponents argue that the nature is an extremely complicated system that has its own mechanisms of restoring balance. This means that the mankind should not interfere with the processes that have existed in the natural environment long before the emergence of the humanity. What is more important is this initiative of the mankind might actually do more harm than good. Finally, people who belong to the opposing side would also note that there is no or little correlation between aggression that is displayed by the people and cruelty to animals. In other words, while there are sure instances when the aggression escalated from torturing animals to killing people, this is not a universal mechanism; so, protection of rights of animals will not make the world less aggressive.
In spite of the fact that the claims that are being made by the opponents of the idea in question may sound valid, there are many flaws in them. For example, when people say that animals are not able to understand that their right for a safe life is being protects they fail to realize that animals are able to feel. In other words, the latter may not comprehend the fact their security is being maintained, but their will surely feel the safety that comes with it. Secondly, when people talk about mechanisms in nature that were designed to protect animals they do not take into consideration that actions that are performed by the people override powers of nature. A good example is the tremendous number of extinct animals that the environment was not able to restore. In other words, the mankind is able to make an irreversible negative impact on the nature. Finally, those who refuse to make a connection between aggression and cruelty to animals are not able to see the consequences from a broad perspective: it is beyond any doubt that protecting the right of animals to a safe life will not change the behavior patterns of the humanity; nevertheless, it will surely contribute to the reduction of the level of aggression in general which will have a positive impact on the mankind in the long run.
As one can easily see, the right of animals to live a save life and being protected from any harm that is done by the humans should be acknowledged by people. This way the latter might put their humanistic values into practice, restore the harmony in relationships with the natural world as well as reduce the overall amount of aggression which will lead to a safer and more convenient place to live.