This argument analysis will be examining the article titled “Animals, Predators, the Right to Life, and the Duty to Save Lives” by Aaron Simmons. Simmons has a Phd in Animal Sciences, and also has a Doctorate degree in Philosophy. He has won many awards and grants including the award for featured student in the field: Animal Sciences. He also has multiple years of academic teaching and researching experience. In his article he uses his experience to examine this, “One challenge to the idea that animals have a moral right to life claims that any such right would require us to intervene in the wild to prevent animals from being killed by predators”(Simmons, 14). Like humans right to life, we have duty to refrain from killing humans, and also to assist fellow humans in preserving their lives. Giving animals that right would mean we have a duty to save them in natural death situations. In his article, Simmons argues that we do not always have a duty to save the lives of animals, but that does not cancel out their right to life. The analysis will show how Simmons used emotion and reasoning to make his argument valuable and …show more content…
a right not to be killed). For whether we have a duty to save another being's life in a given situation depends on a number of factors other than whether that being has a right to life. Inevitably, there will be cases in which we must allow some humans to die, even when it is within our power to save them, but this does not mean that those humans do not still have a right not to be killed. Similarly, in the case of predators, we must allow wild animals to be killed because saving them on any large scale would have disastrous ecological consequences, but this does not mean that animals do not still have alright not to be killed. (Simmons,