Monday, October 26, 2009
Assignment #2
Find guidlines for assignment #2 below. I've picked the subject of "animal rights" for several reasons. It's a cutting edge moral topic and it reflects upon one of our most important industries in America. Read the Wikipedia article for the different arguments, Utilitarian, Rights and Abolitionist, to get an idea of the field you're talking about. In the Wikipedia, there are some arguments against animal rights. I've posted some suggestions as to how to construct your comment. If you have any questions regarding the assignment, you can post them here. HOMEWORK FOR CHAPTER 9 IS BELOW. I'll close this post, Tuesday November 3, at 8pm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I strongly agree with Singer, that animals have rights.
ReplyDeleteThis subject comes very close to my heart because I am a exotic animal veterinary technician and I work with varies animals from your common pet bird to the untamable baboons. I see animals suffer everyday from a broken leg from a pig to a 101.4 fever on a Orangutan and neither animal speaks. Not being able to speak doesn’t free the fact that animals suffers daily. Face expression is more important to me then words because people can lie in front of me without being able to keep a straight face, body expression exposes the truth. I understand on the cycle of life and the purpose of living animals is not to be compare to the purpose of living to a human being, but animals should be respected and be left alone in their own civilization.
Animal abuse is illegal!
-Jessica Montanez-
I believe that the vast majority of human beings have been noted for their desire to explain and manipulate their surroundings. Needing rationality in all occurrences, it comes to no surprise that there are critics of the Animal Rights (animal liberation) idea. Many argue that animals are unable to make moral choices or enter social contracts and therefore should not be granted with rights, Now I ask, does an infant child have rights? What about the people who had suddenly suffered a traumatic accident enabling them from verbal communication? The answer is yes they do.So why is it that these human beings have not been stricken from their rights, when failing to meet the criteria. Why is it so different when it comes to animals, is it because they don't look like us, or maybe because they can't talk? I can't really find no fair reason.
ReplyDeleteAs Mr.Singer stated in response to needing language in order to communicate pain, "it would often be impossible to know when humans are in pain. All we can do is observe pain behavior...there is no reason to suppose animal pain behavior would have a different meaning." Animals are not lifeless rag dolls, they feel pain and suffer just like any of us, and therefore must have rights to protect them from ignorance that still exists in human race
Ariel Rodriguez
This argument is very puzzling to me because it seems as some people feel that animals are just here for human use and disposal. It would be ridiculous for us think that an animal doesn’t have feelings or that they are beneath us to the degree of useless torture they endure for the sake of science. Also, it apparent that we as humans give animals rights as we see fit. For instance, The Michael Vick case this professional athlete was sent to prison for his abuse and killing of dogs for sport. If animals truly had no rights why was he demonized for his actions in the media? Is the euthanasia of race horses after a broken leg more justifiable? Some animal abuse is ok or acceptable, who makes that decision?? Animals are apart of this earth just a much as humans, we should respect them as we want to be respected.
ReplyDeleteGood points, Jessica, Ariel, Thabiti.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw the video of Sarah Palin shooting a wolf and minutes later the animal suffering, while it was dying, my reaction was this is an outrageous practice! But I was even more disturbed when I read that, as Governor of Alaska, she promoted aerial hunting. How could an elected official support something like this? Unfortunately, Gov. Palin is not the only one indifferent toward the suffering of animals, many people around the world perceive animals as “stones” that do not suffer or feel pain, even though, advocates of animal rights have contradicted this perception. Alice Wywialowski, professor of University of Nebraska, said in a research paper “supporters of animal welfare believe that all animals should be treated humanely. Animal rightists believe that all animals have an inherent right to live "naturally" without use by or interference of humans”.
ReplyDeleteMost of us agree that killing an innocent person is illegal and immoral so why does not apply the same concept when it comes to killing an animal that is not harming us? The answer to that question could be debatable. Indeed, every day people kill animals that do not harm us. For instance, millions of animals are being killed to provide food for humans or even for other animals and many are sacrificed in research laboratories; I’m not totally opposed to that practice, but even in those cases, the welfare of the animal should be preserved. Moreover, we should condemn the methods of meat production. In order to produce more meat in a less time possible, Peter Singer said “animals are treated like machines”. Undoubtedly, this is an unfair treatment and that practice should not be tolerated.
Finally, the topic triggers a reflection on how we can help to alleviate the suffering inflicted on some animals and how we can improve our relationship with these living creatures.
Lea Maidique
“Scientist studying the welfare of animals have generally realized that their field began not because purely scientific interest in the quality of life of animal, but because of public concern animals are raised and treated, as articulated by ethicists and social critics.” (David Fraser, 1999)
ReplyDeleteAnimals’ rights mean to me that I have to respect them, regardless if I used them as a mean to an end, because they are an important part of our life in this world. The Humankind has benefited from animals since our beginning. We have eaten them; made clothes and built shelters from their fur; tools and weapons with their bones; riding or using them to work for us; and lately all medical researchers are done on them before to be test on us.
It has been well known for also having them as companion or for entertainment. Regarding all benefits that they have given to us, our society has reached more knowledge about them, and the least that we can do is treating them with respect and compassion. It does not matter what is the purpose by which we have them (to eat; as pets; in zoos; in circus, which I totally dislike, etc). We are in the moral obligation due to our higher position in the creation to take care of the weaker (depend of the situation).
The humans being, the animal and the vegetable kingdom are an essential part of this planet, and thanks to our superior intelligence we are in a better position that allows dominating over them. It does not mean using animals in an abusive matter, but having some human considerations towards them.
In conclusion, giving to them the best quality of life while they are alive; and having mercy with them at the moment we decide their final destination shall be our most important moral obligation.
Jesus Chacon
I believe that animals should have some of the same rights as a human. i.e to be left in their natural habitat. Just because an animal cannot express his or hers self it does not mean that they are not feeling pain. but just like everything else there is going to be an extremes group that want animals to have the exact same rights as a person. I don't agree with this because I believe that animals should have the right to be left alone and not to be experimented on. i.e experimenting makeup on chimps to look for side effects. However, also believe that certain animals in this society cannot maintain their self without involving a person in some shape or form. A perfect example is a domesticated dog, a domesticated dog cannot go out hunting or looking for food they depend on us to take care of them.
ReplyDeleteCarla Paguaga
P.S. CORRECT COMMENT:
ReplyDeleteUtilitarianism trust that we should judge actions strictly upon their consequences or results, which is good if the action will provide the maximum benefit to the largest numbers of individuals. We are all animals, but with different physical characteristics. We as humans can calculate consequences, but we must take into account the interest not only of us as human beings, but also of animals that are able to experience pain, happiness and pleasure.
I agree with Mr. Singer‘s response that language is needed in order to communicate pain, "it would often be impossible to know when humans are in pain. All we can do is observe pain behavior...there is no reason to suppose animal pain behavior would have a different meaning." As a dog owner I have knowledge that animals do communicate. Once, I fainted in the floor in my house and my husband was watching T.V. not knowing what was happening. My dog reacted by barking loudly, and he would pull my husband‘s feet showing him that something was wrong. Body languages as face expressions, smiles and sounds are part of communication skills. One can argue that animals cannot not communicate. Even, when we are sleeping we are receiving and sending messages unconsciously.
All animals should be respected and make rights to protect them; and we should have consideration with all of them, especially with the ones that are in danger of extinction and create more effective laws against animal cruelty.
Please help to stop animal abuse!!
David Acosta
ReplyDeleteAnimals do and should have some basic natural rights. Although it is immoral to abuse animals the cycle of life still exists. The fine line between animal rights and human survival are interrelated. For example, hunting animals is far more moral than allowing the animal to starve. Humans have pets that are loved and cherished as if they were human. However, humans are hypocritical in that while dining at a restaurant wouldn’t even question if the cow they are consuming suffered while being slaughtered. Humans are selective and appeal to their own interests. In the animal kingdom it is survival of the fittest. It is my opinion that although slaughtering animal for the consumption of food my seam immoral it is about survival. On the other hand, abusing animals for the sake science appears immoral except when the medication that was discovered from animal experiments saves your love one’s life. Animals like humans suffer and feel pain equally; therefore, humans must speak for animals and should be given some basic natural rights.
Stefan Haqq
ReplyDeleteAnimals deserve the right to be treated fairly and not abused. Despite not being able to speak, animals do obviously feel pain and emotions. This is a very delicate subject when dealing with the matter of animal farming and the “growing” of animals for human consumption. One question that comes to my attention is if there is a difference when considering the moral issues involved in factory farming and hunting animals in the wild for food. I am in favor of animal rights but I am also in favor of factory farming and animal cultivation. To me it makes more sense for humans to cultivate their own food rather than to take it out of the population of animals living in the wild. The main problem with factory farming is the conditions under which these animals are raised and how they are killed, but if these conditions were to be improved then I would have to say that there is nothing morally wrong with it.
In North America around 17 billion land animals were raised and killed during 2001 to feed us, somewhere between 50 and 100 million other animals were killed in labs. The enormous majority of these animals were forced to live and die in conditions most of us would find morally disgusting.
ReplyDeleteWhether animals have rights is a question of great importance because if they do,
those rights must be respected, even at the cost of great burdens for human beings. There is a broad agreement within both religious and secular ethics that an ethical life respects virtues like fairness, justice and benevolence (support), at the heart of these virtues lies a more basic principle, I cannot reasonably claim that my interests matter more than anyone else’s simply because my interests are mine. My interests may matter more to me, but I cannot claim they matter more in any objective sense.
From an ethical point of view, everyone’s interests deserve equal consideration. So even if we decide to eat meat or not at the end of the day clearly, forcefully and thoroughly; those animals that we decide to have as meals or not have a basic moral right to be treated in ways that show respect for their independent value.
Since the beginning of creation mankind has had dominion over animals, providing us with the basic necessity of survival. Instead of moving forward with our development of knowledge and maturity of our civilization we have actually regressed and become more barbaric through greed, selfishness, and manipulation, having little or no compassion and taking our precious resources of life for granted. The malicious exploitation of animals and the ferocious brutality has to come to an end.
ReplyDeleteFor example; Factory food farming has no mercy for the welfare of animals, concerned with only they’re selfish interest in mass production and capital revenue. Often times these innocent helpless animals are put through unbelievable amounts of pain and suffering. Abused through the use of intensive confinement in dark overcrowded facilities, tortured, skinned alive and slaughtered without any signs of sympathy.
In conclusion, despite of our sophistication and intelligence as humans we should have no right to purposely inflict pain onto animals. Just because were advanced beings, does it give us the right to exploit, manipulate and kill? If at all we have to kill an animal (let it be done in the name of survival) and it should be done quickly and immediately to avoid affliction. Anyone who is found responsible for deliberately abusing animals and inflicting pain or who has no respect for animals should be punished to the highest degree.
Lazaro Calderin
This is a very touchy subject for me because I am an animal lover and strongly agree with animal rights activists. I agree with Peter Singer for the simple facts that if there is a human being who is mute and cannot voice their pain does that take away their rights of protection? Language is not needed to show pain. When you have a person going into cardiac arrest (like my deceased grandfather) most of the time no words are able to be spoken the person will clutch their chest. So is this not a sign of pain & distress. I have seen many animal births from cats all the way to cows and there is no silence. Are we to assume that we are so superior that every living thing is under our control and that we can do with them as we please ?
ReplyDeleteNext thing I would like to address is that these abused animal are similar to a infant or child who has been abused they cannot tell us it is our responsibility as humans & adults to pay attention, protect and care for them.
Factory farms are a disgusting industry. I believe that some animals are used for food intake but, do not believe in factory farms. Farm animals that will be used for survival such as cows, pigs, and chickens should be free range. Free range is where all animals are allowed to roam freely this is considered a humane certification. Therefore if these animals’ lives have to end because of our needs to eat shouldn't we care for them and let them have a good if short life?
In conclusion remember that even if words cannot be spoken the pain can definitely still be felt. These animals are beautiful and some of them are parts of our families. We should cherish them and give help to them when it’s needed. They have just as much right to this planet and protection as we do even if it is from us.
Kimberly Cottingham
In recent local news, there have been horses found slaughtered throughout the county. The meat is being sold in the black-market. Yet, in an article by the Miami Herald (Oct 13, 2009) written on the horses being slauthered and sold for their meat, it was uncovered that horse meat and even your own pet, such as a cat or dog can be consumed by its owner. It is perfectly legal! Can you imagine that? So, one can eat their own horse but not sell it. The only exception is that one must kill the animal in a humane fashion…as oppose to inhumane??? The killing of animals sounds very disturbing and inhumane and yet we enjoy the end product and even lick our fingers after a good juicy rib rack... It sounds rough but it is very true. I guess the professor is totally right…we too are animals. Just like in the wild where we fight and hunt and eat our prey. Now, is it right ethical to “use” animals for development? I wonder…how all the medicines end up in the drug store…somehow…some animal endured testing for it. It is sad and when I think about the actual cruelty and I have seen many documentaries where animals are being used for experiments and to test new drugs…to cure cancer, AIDS, etc…, it is hard to decide just which angel to take.
ReplyDeleteAnimal rights supports the idea that the most basic interest of animals should be afforded the same considerations as the similar interests of humans. There is no need for an animal to be able to verbally communicate to show its emotions, whether is pain, happiness, sadness, anxiety, or even discomfort. Body language says it all, and for those out there who have dogs I’m sure they can relate to this. As far as Factory animal rights and violation I strongly believe that animals deserve freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom to express normal behavior and freedom from fear and distress.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion that’s where the moral issue comes into play because even though the majority of people benefit from factory farming because the end products are highly consumed by our society. I don’t think is the act itself that makes it morally wrong but the conditions in which it operates. Unfortunately the natural instincts of man kind seem to always point on the money making direction without giving much consideration to those who suffer along the way.
Denise Cavicchioni.
Different Communication
ReplyDeleteSometimes we don’t need to understand the language of another person to realize the other person feelings. They are many cases in the world that people from others cultures with different languages and costumes get involved with each other knowing what the other person feel and think. One of the parts of the arguments in favor of animal’s rights of Peter Singer where Scientifics believed that in order to know when a animal is feeling pain, the animal needs to have the capacity of language. I think that this part is irrelevant because language is only one part of communication; there are other parts of communication that human have the ability to comprehend. Although we don’t understand the language of animals, humans has the capacity to use other kinds of communication; for example, the non-verbal communication such as facial gestures, and body expressions to understand them.
As a result, although animal’s specie play a strategic role in the human life as food supply, clothes supply, pharmaceutics supply, and others. We as human beings should respect animals’ rights and have more regulations and law in the industries to bring our supplies in a form with more dignity for animals without violated their rights.
Animal rights activist's argue that animals have rights akin to those of human beings. In some instances, these animal rights activist's do not distinguish a difference between animals and humans and reject the concept of any type of animal use. For example, the founder of PETA was quoted as saying "Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." On the other hand, I believe that animals should not be afforded the same rights as humans. I do feel as though humans have an obligation to treat animals humanely and with respect. For hundreds of years mankind has used animals as, not only a means of food, but also for the use of weapons, and scientific advancement. With regards to animal testing, I believe that the ends justify the means and is crucial in our understanding and treatment of diseases. No doubt, thousands of lives have been saved and various vaccines have been created using animals. In addition, according the the USDA, only 3% of the Earth is suitable for crop production. The human race relies heavily on animal products for survival. Thus, I find it absurd that people advocate animal rights yet find it hard to resist their hamburgers and steaks.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Molina
For many years the animal rights conflict has been a growing issue and the topic is only getting hotter. The situation really lies with crtics debating on how much rights an animal should have if any. Some say that because animals make no moral choices they shouldn't have rights and on the other side of the arguemnt some say they should be equivilant to humans. I agree with what Roger Scruton says. It is unconsevable to me that we should decide the humans are the only creatures on this planet with rights. Animals in many ways inprove our ways of life. But, the question should really be what is neccessary ? Without the use of animal testing, we would be without a vast amount of knowledge gained. But, that doesnt condone the poor conditions these creatures have to sustain. Animal rights is a hot topic and one that hopefully will find some balance soon.
ReplyDeleteNathalie Dalkranian
The argument that animals should be given the same consideration as humans, in regards to morality, is reaching new heights. It is a sensitive topic that brings about controversial views. Advocates agree that animals should be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community, not property, and that they should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment. To a certain extent,I agree with animal rights advocates and feel as if the interest of animals should be balanced. I also believe that animals should have rights but not to the degree of human rights. They are not able to make moral and logical decisions; therefore they should not have the same basic equal rights as we do. Although they share a common trait, and that is the ability to feel pain, their rights should be limited. If animals are used as a source of protein in our diets, for scientific research that does not promote unnecessary suffering then I'm in favor of using them in those capacities. However, when used for entertainment purposes, for fashion statements or gaming practices there should be guidelines to help protect them from such abuse. Utilitarianism promotes the greastest good for the greatest number of people. It is said that we are part of the animal kingdom. Human beings are the only species that will inflict pain for mere pleasure but on the other hand animals will attack and cause pain for their survival. Maybe, we are the ones that should have limited rights, after all we have the ability to rationalize and be logical.
ReplyDeleteGeorgette Dixon
The topic animal rights is a controversial issue that has many pros and cons from certain stand points. Humans are hunters and it is for that sole purpose that we have survived and evolved throughout the ages. Now a days we do not hunt for necessity but for sport and that is where the line is crossed in regards to violating animal rights. We need to feed on animals to get the proper nutrition. There are certain proteins that we do not produce on our own and if we do not consume from certain animal products we can develop deficencies that can be critical to our health. This would be the utilitarian approach on animal rights because we benefit from animals. On the other hand, there are those individuals that violate the circle of life by abusing animals and use them for entertainment purposes(I.E. poachers, scientists that use animals for testing products, people that engage in dog fighting and cockfighting). We need to learn how to differentiate essential needs from animal abuse.
ReplyDeleteReserved consciousness
ReplyDeleteWhat does it really take to protect earthy creatures from being killed and maliciously tortured by no other than humans? Do we need to see them extinct to the point that it’s a means to an end? Is it the instinct of cannibalism that takes total control over us? The fact that they do not stand on two feet and have parallel arms does not give people the right to label them as meaningless
“wild things”. One as a human should be able to provide protection to all creatures no matter if it’s the tiniest mammal. One should be more on the abolitionist side of this matter because it shares basis with other form of arguments regarding freedom. What is the difference between humans and animals in the aspects of feelings? This can be compared to a form of racism, and sexism, saying that homosexuals cannot articulate same feelings as straight couples, and that this type of beings has no moral sensibility. Further more people ignore the facts that animals have senses, they can see, hear, smell, eat, and feel just to please one’s body of such delicacies. We pretend to be blind by not asking questions about where meat comes from, what we are eating and about whether it was cultivated or killed, its total ignorance. If animals could speak what would they say?
The Animal Welfare position defends the use of animals for human purposes such as food, entertainment and research. But it should be done in the most humane way available.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument of using animals for human intake because it will be almost impossible to totally eradicate the consumption of meat. The butchering should be done with minimal suffering and pain since animals, especially mammals and birds have similar nervous systems and pain behaviors as ours. Humans and animals exhibit body retraction, contortions, moaning, and the appearance of fear in the event of the cause of pain. According to Peter Singer we can assume that animals feel pain because we share with them mechanisms of pain detection in the brain.
The use of animals for entertainment such as bullfights and rodeos serve purpose other than personal amusement. In the case of hunting for sport is unethical because it causes unnecessary suffering and injury to animals and disrupts the circle of nature. If a female deer with a herd of fawns is killed, the unprotected offspring may die as well.
Cruelty to animals has been connected with psychopathologies, such as anti-social personality disorder, a type of common behavior of murderers, rapists and other violent killers according to the FBI.
Andreia Plave
Don't mind me. Nice comments.
ReplyDeleteAgreeably, animals can not physically talk. However, do we really need for them to "say" they are in pain for us to know so? Although animals do not have a language we may understand,we as functional and practical human beings are intelligent enough to know and see when a subject may be in pain.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, this is all too often ignored. Peter Singer defends animal rights on their ability to feel pain. Since animals do not have a language, scientist argue that it is impossible to know when an animal is suffering. But what then would we make of their screaming, moaning, and contorting of their bodies? Not to mention the look of horror and shock as they are taken and subjected to suffering. Singer argues there is no reason to suppose animal pain behavior would have a different implication. Are their actions not enough to tell us they are in pain? What in the case of babies, or mute patients? When they are in pain they can not physically talk or express the fact. However if they scream, moan, and physically appear to be in pain, is that not enough for one to know. Is this not the exact same way animals show and appear to be in pain when they are suffering?
Animals should not be ignored in this fact, or even disregarded in the discussion of pain. They are living beings and have nervous systems, pain thresholds, and can feel suffering just as you and I. To base an argument on the fact they can not speak is preposterous, and more should be done to help these defenseless and helpless beings.
Just as wikipedia says, "...most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of humans."
ReplyDeleteHumans are animals, just higher evolved animals than say dogs or cats or any other animals. However, the same is true for all animals, we all fell pain, we all feel hunger, but only humans have a higher control over all those necessities. No other animal can go to a supermarket and fix a quick bite to eat if hungry; no other animal can have the certainty that humans do when it comes to ensuring the next meal. Humans have the power to control all other animal's habitats; whether it is protecting it or destroying it we are responsible for making sure all other animals will have a "home". More than that, domestic animals, such as dogs, cats, and cattle; they depend on us for food, shelter, and medicine. We cannot overlook the fact that for some animals we have become the only survival method they know. Animal rights are not only required, but also necessary for the survival of all. What are we going to do when there are no more whales eating plankton and we get red tides that destroy all commercial fishing grounds? What are going to do when there are no more snakes to control the rat population that destroy crops? It is in the benefit of humanity to ensure everything is kept in balance, for our own sake.
A Broader look at The Golden Rule:
ReplyDeleteMy argument is for the defense of dogs’, working dogs in particular. Outside of being mans’ best friend, the ultimate companion, the dog is a pet who if you treat decently will return his/her love unconditionally. Dogs serve humanity in a wide range of jobs.
The most fundamental of all is to guard our private property, ourselves, and the ones we love; these dogs will give up their own life to protect their masters, how many of the people in our lives can we say that about. Out on the range, ranchers who cannot afford to heir additional help turn to the dog to help handle the herds and to bring home the bacon. On the front-line of the “war on drugs” the United States customs and border patrol officers and the DEA utilize the unquestionable ability of K-9s to sniff out illegal narcotics, keeping them out of the hands of our children & abusers. There are countless other law enforcement units that utilize the service of K-9s to protect us from criminals as well as working in the military, guarding American bases around the world. Also, lets’ not forget to recognize the bravery of the dogs who fearlessly lead the way in search and rescue missions; for example, at the site of the world trade center in New York City on “9/11”. Additionally, who can deny praising our furry friends who help navigate the blind through our complex city streets? The superior training of these dogs facilitates confidence & safety for our societies visually impaired citizens. Finally, there are dogs that lift the spirits of people who are recuperating from illness as well as providing comfort measures for those who have terminal medical conditions. There is ongoing research in the field of positive psychology on validating how the power of the mind has a direct effect on linking the physiology of our nervous, immune, and endocrine system to improve our holistic health. With that assertion, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the powerful impact dogs have in lifting the human spirit. Medical institutions are currently adopting the services of softhearted dogs, especially with children, to bring smiles to the faces upon patients with ailing health conditions. For those with terminal conditions dogs can soften persons with their imminent passing.
Therefore, humanity should treat these loving, hardworking, brave & compassionate creatures the way they serve humanity, with all of their heart and soul.
Respectfully
Bryant Hernandez
Guys, let's try to post the assignment here. Don't send me stuff to my email.
ReplyDeleteAn average fertile dog can produce two liters a year, with about six to ten puppies. A cat can produce about three liters a year, with about four to six kittens. That’s a lot of animals, most without a secure home to go too.
ReplyDeletePet overpopulation is a crisis that is affecting the United States
at an overwhelming rate. Millions of dogs and cats are either homeless or in a shelter. Breeding has become a major problem, not only for the animals, but for our communities and our local shelters. Most of the animals that are bred are usually left homeless because of the lack of people able to give them a home, so they are either relinquished to a shelter or left on the streets with their lives at stake. The majority of these animals will end up being put to death by the shelter simply because they do not have the necessary resources to take care of every animal that enters through their doors. The rest can suffer grave consequences on the streets, anything from cruelty, to illness and even death.
An average fertile dog can produce two liters a year, with about six to ten puppies. A cat can produce about three liters a year, with about four to six kittens. That’s a lot of animals, most without a secure home to go too.
ReplyDeletePet overpopulation is a crisis that is affecting the United States
at an overwhelming rate. Millions of dogs and cats are either homeless or in a shelter. Breeding has become a major problem, not only for the animals, but for our communities and our local shelters. Most of the animals that are bred are usually left homeless because of the lack of people able to give them a home, so they are either relinquished to a shelter or left on the streets with their lives at stake. The majority of these animals will end up being put to death by the shelter simply because they do not have the necessary resources to take care of every animal that enters through their doors. The rest can suffer grave consequences on the streets, anything from cruelty, to illness and even death.
David Tengi
As you know utilitarianism believes that happiness or pleasure is produced by the amount of people that are affected positively from an outcome. Animal rights activists oppose cruelty towards animals on moral grounds. While all proponents of animal rights share this basic premise, they diverge beyond that. July of 2001 Andrew Burnett was sentenced for three years in prison for tossing a small dog into traffic. Animals deserve the right to walk the streets and not are run down by careless people because they have as must as common sense as a human being. Animals are most people main source of food, so animals have just as much rights to earth as us as humans, just because they walk on four legs does not make them any different but the rights still should remain the same. Animals have as must right as humans being. Even though they can’t talk they feel pain and have feelings.
ReplyDelete"Animal rights is the philosophy of allowing non-human animals to have the most basic rights that all sentient beings desire: the freedom to live a natural life free from human exploitation, unnecessary pain and suffering, and premature death. This is what the animal rights movement is about; it is not about working for equality between human and non-human animals." (Vrg.org) My fight is that in part for Animal Rights because they should not be abused or made to suffer for unnecessary reasons. They are a source of nutrition for humans, animals themselves, and the enviornment.I don't believe that they should be subject to unnecessary death because somebody wanted to wear a fur coat, have a new lip gloss or used in animal fights for entertainment. Utilitarianism is a theory of morality and is in other words a way of saying "how one should act". It states that one should act so as to maximize the amount of happiness in the world. When it comes to animal rights we as humans ourselves evolved from animals. Animals have feelings and suffer just as we do. They are here on earth to help and although it is not right that we use them as nutrition they are still a source of it and we should not take them for granted. If we did not have animals like fish, cows, chickens, etc then what would type of food would we live off of? How would our world be? In third world countries poor families are blessed if they have 1 cow to provide milk for their kids to have something to keep them from starving. Therefore, I believe that animals should not have to suffer for unnecessary causes.
ReplyDeleteNicole C
Peter Singer suggests that all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their species is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. I can't agree more; People can see and understand when discrimination is made to a person due to skin color or race because people speak out to defend themselves. On the other hand, animals are subject of abuse by humans and many other spcecies are in risk of extinction. Animals have feelings and suffer just as much as any human being does, but they cannot speak for themselves reason why they become slaves of the society, they are harmed, mistreated and murdered on a daily bases and nothing is done about it. Becoming a vegan person helps. However, it isn't the only harm that is done to animals; the animal experimentation that scientists do when they test dangerous chemicals on animals without consideration for the pain those suffer. A simple example like removing animals from their natural habitat and placing them into a small cage inside a house, where sometimes temperature rise to 99 degree Fahrenheit or don't feed them properly is a cruel abuse that often humans do to their owns pets.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a situation of "animal rights" Vs "human rights" like it was discussed at a meeting of the Columbus Rotary yesterday. The earth is a place to share and keep its balance. Animals are used to our favor like food,as transportation, and for our company, but we are taking more than advantage of them and have started exploitation by use their skin to wear it for fashion, hunting animals for sport and cruelly kill them without reason. It is time to change our mainds and respect the animals.
Angela Castiblanco
When it comes to animal rights i believe Mr. Regan,and Mr.Singer's arguments are a step in the right direction in what is becoming more and more an ujust world for animals.In "animal Liberation" Singer argues that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their species can be similar as to discriminating someone due to their skin tone.Mr Regan continues to argue in favor of animal rights. In his book " The case for animal rights" Regan argues that animals are what he cals "subjects-of-life" giving animals natural rights.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, I believe in Regan's "Subject-of-life" argument,we must first respect animals simply for being,and find other ways of producing meat.We need to farm animals in healthier environments, this in return would lead mankind to better food production.