It is true that we do things to animals that we are not for certain how are they are affected by it. He hints about his thesis in the second paragraph but I was not certain if that is where the thesis would be stated. His thesis is stated in the third paragraph “It is a demand for a complete change in our attitudes to nonhumans” and “It is a demand that we cease to regard the exploitation of other species as natural and inevitable, and that, instead, we see it as a continuing moral outrage”. Singer wants us to change the way we treat animals and will try to convince us to do so. He does make a convincing case but he compares animal liberation with three other liberation movements.
We will not make them suffer long painful deaths. Ethical treatment of animals can be solved using the deontology theory. “Deontology focuses on what we are obligated to do as rational moral agents. It is particularly important to see that the deontologist does not say that actions do not have consequences; rather, the deontologist insists that actions should not be evaluated on the basis of the action's consequences (Mossler, 2010).“ One example of the deontology theory in action is your livestock is being attacked by a wild animal. In efforts to protect your livestock you shoot and kill the wild animal.
The morality of humane treatment or imposing the parameters of human rights as a moral imperative where animals are concerned should be based upon the idea that as an enlightened human being, animals should be treated with dignity. That animals do not deserve humane treatment because they cannot reciprocate is not a rational idea. Neither is the argument that because they cannot be taught relevant. It is not about the creature who is being treated in a certain way as much as the morality involved in using power over other creatures to deny their
For this reason alone, I believe that humans should treat animals with more decency. By seeing their interaction with their own kin in nature, we need to realize that they also have a purpose in life. Although we may not understand them completely, animals share a lot of similar traits with humans. For example, about a portion of them are classified as mammals that reproduce just like us. Thus, we should have a sense of compassion towards them because they
Should animal testing be illegal? Rough Draft Sharniece Thornton Unites States Government November 17, 2011 Introduction: Throughout history, animal testing has played an important role in leading to new discoveries and human benefit. Many people are believed to be ignorant or misunderstand the nature of the lives that animals actually live, and are unable to understand the actual laboratory procedures and techniques. Other than the philosophical questions that arise, ethical questions are the main reason why many animal right activists want it banned in every country. Activists feel that to this day, there should be no good reason why any living thing should be subjected to this cruel punishment and unwanted torture just for serving another being’s needs.
Others that are pro-BSL and/or have been strongly affected by these dangerous dogs say that there is not enough done to keep the general public safe from these vicious animals and that there needs to be harsher laws. BSL is something many Animal lovers and dog owners are strongly against but not so much for reasons one may think. Many dog owners think there should be something done about dangerous dogs but the confiscation, destruction, and racial profiling of family pets should not be a way to do it. The only way to truly identify what breed a dog is would be by a blood test. But because of costs many legislators have created a checklist for Animal control and police officers to follow to identify dogs.
(Midgley p. 152) In other words, Kant does not believe animals to be persons, but they are not exactly things or objects. So the question remains, where exactly do animals stand? Since it is apparent that humans do regard animals as more than mundane objects and that it is evident that animals do display certain levels of intelligence and sentience, I will argue that humans indeed have an irrevocable moral obligation to animals. First of all, let’s start with defining what a human person really is, I believe that a human person is a person if they match the following criteria. They must be a conscious being as in they must be able to experience things subjectively, secondly, they must be self-aware, and thirdly, they must display a certain degree of intelligence, (Anderson).
Founding members of Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are groups of people that do not understand the origin of rodeo and its sensitivity to animal welfare issues. When something is not understood, it is commonly misconstrued. Rodeo is being protested against because the people of PETA and SHARK play on readers emotions. Emotions, especially “blind” ones, are strong enough to cause people to take action against organizations or activities about which they have no background information. If more people did not rely so much on emotions and relied more on intelligence, then problems like this would not arise.
However, the activist believes survival is not enough. On PETA’s website, they make a firm stance by stating that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way” (1). Subsequently, what are animals to humans then? What function do they serve to humans other than the right to live without suffering? In this analysis the activist approach to animal rights is too extreme.
What are they going to do when they are extinct where will these poachers get their ivory? Fur? Or whatever else they kill for? Everyone has an ethical responsibility I believe we are all on this planet together and should share it equally. We shouldn’t cause damage to creature’s homes just because it is on our land.