In the Old Testament, God asserts that humans should follow the law “thou shall not kill” . He however, instructs people to kill one another several times, showing that killing itself is not always immoral or unjustified in the eyes of God. Killing is not justified unless it is for a purpose that values life such as for food, survival, self-defense, warfare, or as a deterrent for murder. Killing for food or for survival is not wrong, as it is part of the natural order and is done in the interest of preserving the life of oneself. Since the origin of the first complex organisms on Earth, creatures have depended on other living things, plants and animals, as means of sustenance.
Will protecting wilderness areas stop tourist in cars and people with special needs from enjoying the national forest? These areas are necessary source for clean air, water, and vital wildlife habitat. Some interest groups will always have primitive wild places to discover and enjoy. Eric Julber, in his passage Let’s Open Up Our Wilderness Areas, assumes that an “access” philosophy is more desirable about America’s Wilderness than a “purist-conservationist”. He argues, “The purist philosophy which keeps Americans out of their own land is an unwise misuse of our wilderness resource.” I realize his concerns about some people love to enjoy and discover of America’s splendid wilderness areas rather than see on postcards.
If someone is looking for a lesson in morality, nature is not the place to look. The wilderness is full of creatures scavenging and stalking, looking for the right moment before they can pounce on their unsuspecting prey. Animal behavior, although it may appear to be wicked and unethical, is a necessary way of life to fight through daily struggles to survive. The fact of the matter is that animals do not behave immorally, but rather non-morally. Author Stephen Gould nailed it on the head when he named his essay, “Nonmoral Nature.” His essay provokes our thoughts on nonhuman motivation.
Some people think that hunting should be stopped, well others believe that hunting should be a constitutional right. All hunting has rules and regulations and no matter what is being hunted you must first have a hunting license. Hunters are limited to when they can hunt certain animals to make sure that animals are not being hunted during breeding seasons. The Department of Natural Resources keeps up with the population of animals and decides what the limits are every year. The D.N.R have officers that make sure people are obeying the law.
Ethics on use of animals for research The early Greek philosophers valued reason above all else, and ascribed little moral value to animals and even to other humans that did not possess this attribute. While this viewpoint might be viewed as extreme, from a biological perspective this might be seen as competition. Using the survival advantage given to us by our capacity for reason is no less moral or ethical than another animal using its adaptations to survive. However, it should be obvious that by allowing unrestricted human exploitation of animals, there is great potential for extirpation of species. Thus, we utilize animals for food and clothing; we keep them as pets or as livestock; we plant our crops, harvest wild plant products, and build our cities and highways where animals might otherwise have lived, but we do so with restrictions on our
One way the author shows this is through point of view when in the passage the concerned driver continues to share her point of view about how people should put up signs to protect the neighboring animals. She is cautious when driving being careful not to hit any animals and is obviously serious about the moral obligation she feels to respect the lives of other creatures. If the driver didn’t stick to her self morals and respect living creatures then she probably, along with her neighbors would have been the cause of the deaths of
Deer hunting is a tradition that gives many people this thrill, and I won’t argue that people shouldn’t be able to enjoy this. However, I will argue the common belief that hunting is necessary for a healthy deer population. Hunting is not an effective form of control over the deer population and does not decrease human/deer conflicts. Many hunters often claim that hunting effectively manages the deer population, preventing over-population and making sure there is a healthy population. Predators such as wolves and cougars naturally keep the deer population in check, but in places where these animals have left or died out hunters feel that they become the necessary predators.
Does the wrongness of killing animals (human and non-human) depend on them possessing specific attributes? If the wrongness of killing depends on the killed holding particular attributes, do non-human animals possess them? (Here I will examine the latest research into animal mindedness.) If some (or all) animals lack the attributes that deems killing immoral, do we have any grounds to oppose their killing? If, as it is commonly claimed, there is a mismatch between utilitarian pronouncements and our intuitions when it comes to killing, does it pose a problem for the utilitarian perspective?
However, what may be debatable is the reasoning behind the environmental cause. On many organizations’ websites, their reasons stated for attempting to save endangered species include medicinal, research, and economical benefits. While these are incredibly important, these justifiers are also taking the animal away from the issue. The issue now is about humans and how we suffer from a species dying out, when the foundation of the matter should be the wellbeing of the animals and the ecosystems to which they belong and contribute. The idea of human responsibility is the understanding of obligation a human should feel toward a cause or situation, recognizing the impact humans as a whole have had on the issue.
Despite the differences in our individual environmental ethic we can all easily understand that when it comes down to it we deeply rely on the world around us. Yet we have still chosen to disregard concepts concerning the longevity of humanity. Overpopulation, exploitation of the third world, consumerism, unregulated growth, stewardship, language and education reform are all part of the social and environmental commentary our authors provide us with. Georg E. Tinker a Native American theologian uses his unique perspective to inquire about religions effects on our environment in “An American Indian Theological Response to Eco-Justice”. Similarly Cathryn Bailey comments on western societies view of animal ethics as a looking glass into societies views of life other than that of humans.