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.
Owners of animals cannot mistreat or use them in a way that would consider to be cruel to animals. This is why we have state laws to protect them. In 2001, it became a felony to be cruel to animals. I will be explaining what is animal cruelty, the two types of laws, felony fines and punishment, also compare it to other states that have this law. Animal cruelty is a person who commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly: tortures an animal; fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in the person's custody; abandons unreasonably an animal in the person's custody; transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner; kills, seriously injures, or administers poison to an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent; causes on animal to fight one another; uses a live animal as lure in dog race training or in dog coursing on a racetrack; trips a horse; injures an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent; or seriously overworks an animal (Texas penal code 9) According to the Animal Legal and Historical Center, Texas animal cruelty laws are very narrow in their scope.
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
This cruelty could be prosecuted as a felony if intentional, malicious, or extreme enough to be torture, or to cause suffering or death (animal neglect law and legal definition). However, “Many states specifically exclude livestock or any “common” agriculture practices from their cruelty laws, and even when good laws exist, it can be difficult to convince law enforcement to make an arrest and/or seize livestock who are being neglected” (animal cruelty facts and statistics). “The laws regarding animal cruelty are varied around the world, with
This quote can not justify animal testing, because these products are tested on animals that sometimes will not show the same side affects as humans. This alone is a reason why we should end animal experimentation because it is pointless in the first
Animals are pets, either household or wildlife, and either way they should not be physically or verbally abused. Leaving animals unattended for long periods of time can lead to major problems. Neglect, uncared for, and unhealthy environment are all ways of abuse. Starvation, yelling and beating are physical and verbal abuse. Most animals get spayed or neutered to prevent the animals from breeding with one another.
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.
But, it emphasizes the cooperation of communities as a whole to become no-kill. Yes, this is an even larger aspect to tackle than simply just turning shelters away from the “dark side,” but it actually makes full sense once the article is read. The article basically states the same things as above about how no-kill shelters tend to inadvertently dump loads of left over animals onto other shelters for them to deal with: “[C]hoosing to be limited admission by limiting the number of animals you accept, then touting yourself as "no kill" while leaving other rescues to deal with the animals you didn't accept only divides the animal welfare community...which in the end is bad for the animals.” ("KC Dog Blog,"
I agree with carter in that without a language animals are unable to form thought and reason, and thereby have no realization of there existence. I also believe in the eating of meat because of natural order, I believe that, because we are a superior race we possess the right to eat weaker animals to survive, just as the wolf eats the rabbit because the rabbit is the wolves natural prey. Although vegetarians may argue that because we are able to reason and discern that another organism is feeling pain, unlike the wolf, we have an obligation to our prey to not cause them pain. But I believe that while we may cause pain to another animal, it is the natural order, animals that are born as prey are preyed upon, whether or not they are born on a farm or in the wilderness doesn't change the fact that they are still able to satisfy a predators needs. Rachels and other vegetarians claim that
They advocated dealing with the epidemic by instituting a combination of animal control ordinances and educational efforts, as well as more accurate reporting of dog attacks. They opposed breed bans on the ground that any dog could be a bad dog, that it is too difficult to identify breeds like pit bulls, and that people with bad intentions will turn harmless breeds into killer breeds to stay one step ahead of the law. Other organizations that exist specifically to oppose breed bans and, in particular, pit bull bans, also promote stiff criminal laws against people who abuse dogs or habitually violate the animal control laws. See, for example, the "Three Strikes You're Out" proposal by Animal Farm Foundation, Inc., an organization devoted "to restore the image of the American Pit Bull Terrier, and to protect him from discrimination and cruelty" (the quote is from their home