Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights

In the article entitled “Why animals deserve legal rights”, Steven M. Wise states that having rights is important because it shows importance of existence. And the law distinguishes animals from people: law supposes that animals do not have rights but people have. He believes that now is time that all animals should have rights.
The author use illustration to support his main idea which all animals should have their rights. First of all, he used professional statistics. For example, “According to statistics collected annually by the Department of Agriculture in the United States, tens of millions of animals are likely to be killed during biomedical research…. ( Wise p.131-132)” In accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and allies, hundreds of millions of animal will be killed by hunters or utilized for circuses, rodeos, and wayside zoos ( Wise p.132). Therefore, his opinion can have authentic and it made the reader imagine that many animals are in pain. Second, the author quotes scholars’ points to support his claim. For instance, the Roman jurist Hermongenianus said “All law was established for men’s sake.” As the author quotes the point, he shows that the law is injustice to nonhumans. Third, he criticizes the point for using his examples after Wise explains the legal thinker view that the right is controlled by autonomy ( Wise p.132). First, people always do not act with autonomy ( Wise p.132). Second, some animal has emotion or can understand effect and cause like humans ( Wise p.132-133). Finally, mute people cannot speak like nonhumans but they have rights ( Wise p.133).
I strongly agree to the main idea of the article because I believe that all living things are important, and so are all nonhuman animals. My point is that animals without legal rights have to be treated with care because they have rights to live their own lives as living things. On the other hand, I disagree with some authors’ views.
To begin with, the author’s arguments reflect that his views are very conclusive. Wise says “the law ignores all nonhuman animals unless a person decides to do something to them, and then, in most cases, nothing can be done to help them ( Wise p.131).” Both the sentence and the quotation of the Roman jurist Hermongenianus, which as mentioned earlier in the article, posts all humans indifferent to all animals and it makes humans as egoists who make laws only to their profit; however, some people try to help them continually. For example, some veterinary surgeon treats animals that had pain for free. Also, some people object to experiments with using animals for animals’ rights. Also, animals are helped and protected by laws and rules and it is the current of the times. Our society has law that protects a rare variety. If people run counter to the law, they will get punishment such as a fine and/or penal servitude. And zoo has rule which spectators do not touch windowpanes when animals are within windowpanes.
His general thinking can pose a question. Do you think all animals deserve legal rights which is the authors’ general thinking in the article? I do not think so. Because I think that some of animals do not deserve their rights. For instance, rare variety animals have their legal rights in the laws and the laws makes that people can not touch the animals’ life to protect rights of rare variety animals. Also some pets are satisfied with care of human. Because some pet are in good surroundings within enough food and easy life. If pets deserve their rights, the pet will refuse their life and run away from their owner but they do not. It has over one percent possibility which all animals do not deserve legal rights.
Finally, I can not accept the authors’ one point of view which mute people cannot speak like nonhumans but they have rights so nonhumans should have rights ( p.133). In this opinion, mute people and animals are treated equally. But both mute people and animals are not equal even though they has appoint of sameness. Both mute people can not speak language as animals however mute people are higher than animal in intelligence quotient part. Even though chimpanzees have higher IQ than other animals, chimpanzees do not have calculation ability, but mute people have ability of calculation. For example, when someone dropped white zero two papers to chimpanzee, the chimpanzee hold white ball which has the language of 2 numbers from in 1 and 2. It seems that chimpanzee but it is just visual training that pick white ball. Because when someone changed the color of white ball, the chimpanzee very confused and pick the wrong thing.
In conclusion, I have same thinking about main point which is the authors’ thesis. But I disagree with a point which a conclusive expression of using word ‘all animal’. Therefore, I claim that animals without legal rights have to be treated with care because they have rights to live their own lives as living things. Also, I disagree with a conclusive view which is people do not care animals, and an inequality view between mute people and animals.

Reference
Wise, S.M. (2003) Writing from Source: why animals deserve legal rights. New York: Boston