From "Radical But Right" by Sarah Wells, the argument states about animal rights. The writer supports her claim through plenty of resources. Moreover, she states well compare with the counterarguments which state animals don't have right, animals are dumb so they don't have interests, or proteins can be gained from animal meat.
Because of role as human property which human always been the master upon animal, it is true that animals can't be protected well even though we have some obligations toward them. However, because actually they have emotions and ablities to feel pain, the writer showed that we should keep their rights. Yes, it is true that they can't voice their discomfort, causing people to doubt their pain. Here is a point that we can find persuaviness of this essay. It shows credible references such as books, Professional documents or Government websites such as U.S. department of Justice. By showing a scientific result, it shows animals' nervous systems are structure similarly to humans and function in the same ways.
Because they are capable of suffering, it is right to keep them safe. Also, the essay claimed that there is no need to kill or consume. For people, it is no require to wear jewlry, fur coat or leather jacket. Rather, it is good to have a vegetarian diet for people nutrionally. Some people in counter side argue, the vegetarian lifestyle doesn't fulfill perfect diet because the protein which can be gained from meat is lack. According to essay, actually higher protein concentrations can be gained from soybeans and certain chesses. The vegetarian diet will good for society as reduce the obesity rates , mediate starvation, and cause nonviolence.
Because the essay provides good resources and it applied well against with counter side, I really enjoyed to read it.
