Does the Word “Guardianship” Cause Less Ethical Arguments? Animal rights groups have advocated that considering the pets’ owners as guardians will make the status of an animal higher. The words “owner” and “guardian” seem like they are simply synonyms of each other, but in the eyes of the court this altering of words would cause major legal implications. This would give the animal more rights that are similar to human’s rights. It would prevent animals from being considered as property of their owners and permit them to be companions.
Animal abuse is a serious issue that is often overlooked because it is not on everyone’s top priorities. However, this does that mean the issue does not matter. Many organizations such as PETA try to raise the people’s awareness about the issue. Animal Cruelty commercial by Sarah McLachlan provides the audience with information and the crucial conditions of the abused animals and offers ways for people who are interested to help such as donations and adoptions. In order to appeal and grab interest of a larger audience, the commercial possess very strong qualities of ethos, pathos and logos.
Do we even have a right to decide their rights? Many animals all around the world are abused daily. They are starved, beaten, and just overall neglected. Animals are believed to have certain rights in today's society. Animals should be able to live beautiful, happy lives and not live in fear.
[animal-testing.procon.org] Researchers in Aston University have made it known that it is not worth taking the lives of these animals for testing, because the things we’re trying to make happen with human bodies is very different from the animal body. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. There is a big percentage from the 1950’s up till now that animal testing is flawed by not being correct when it is given to the people it is for. So why not just stop the animal experiments that are not just killing, but also torturing the animals.
Americans are spending too much money on their pets. This proves that people care more for their pets than helping people get out of poverty. People treat their pets like if their children and will do whatever they could to see their pets healthy or alive. Pets are just there to keep company to a person who’s lonely. They also help people that are sick or are having emotional problems, and of course they could also be your pet.
On the other hand, Chu continues to talk about “animal rights” throughout the interview, whereas in his film he only concentrates on “dog rights.” One cannot help but be curious how one species can represent every animal. Other than the two demonstrations of overgeneralization mentioned above, Chu also recalls himself “[eating] dog meat,” and infers that “abusing animals is a way for people to release their stress.” This is also evidence of Chu trying to generalize about his own animal-abusing behavior. Furthermore, there are other parts in Chu’s interview to find fault with. Chu has preconceived ideas about how different beings think. “Animals do not reason like humans and cannot vote.” Chu asserts, “[b]ut they have all sorts of feelings just like others.” This is apparently his personal assumption, without a solid scientific base to support.
The homeless need helps and supports in order to deal with their problems. The homeless know how to take care of themselves as same as everyone but because of lacking supports and help such as money and a home from the government, they are unable to deal with their problems. One of many ways, the homeless people can feel better and safe is by getting help and support from their problems and show them things, for instance, getting a job. According to the article “No More Homeless In America: It Can Be Done, Here Is How”? the author agrees that “[People] can end homelessness by providing those who are without home with a home meaning a real home not a shelter.
When using someone from our own kind, we see it as cruel. But when using someone from another species, it is perfectly fine. “All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.” The significance of this novel is to open the eyes of the reader to the harsh realities of what is happening to animals in today’s society. Scientists perform harsh experiments that are often unnecessary and result in more experimentation. The United States government censors the cruelty from everyone in society, but they target
Animal testing Animal testing is a very controversial topic that is widely debated. Like any topic there are positives and negatives to animal testing. Reasons against animal testing that stand out to me are that animals could be tortured and will suffer, animals can die in the process of testing, and animals don’t have a voice to stand up for themselves. Reasons for animal testing include medical advancement, product safety, and scientific knowledge. With these facts in mind I think the positives outweigh the negatives and humans should use animal testing to conduct research.
Should animal-actors have roles in films/movies? People are concerned about the treatment of animals in film, both on camera and behind the scenes. Animals have always had roles in our best movies. Although, their safety is put at risk when we film movies with them, since not all Hollywood productions meet the high standards of keeping animals safe onset, according to “Beasts of Burden” in TFK. It’s awful to even think that animals are in pain just for our entertainment.