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
On the other hand, reflective knowledge is internalist knowledge. It is acquired by reflecting on the principles that underlie animal knowledge. Those who have this knowledge are consciously aware of the conditions that produced it. Gettier’s case can be evaluated as not being true knowledge. Because Smith does not have intellectual knowledge about Jones owing a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona.
During this time the people might have seen animals as very supreme creatures and placed them in ranks such as humans. Though we took that theory somewhere else and made animals a lower rank in our society. The kneeling bull is a very unique piece of art work that was justprobably as an instrument to play with. The statue is different from the instruments that we use today to make the sound of music for us. We certainly would not consider carving our instruments into animals as we see no relationship between the two.
The Law of Nature is the known difference between right and wrong. That is, man’s distinction between what is right and what is wrong. Lewis also believes we as humans have a primal instinct, although this is not what he means by the moral law. Lewis says: “I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the moral law... Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.”(Lewis 9).
In particular, Siffre’s study was a case study, which focused on one individual person. Therefore, the results can’t be generalised to the wider population, as it doesn’t account for individual differences. (AO3) • Another weakness is that Siffre’s study only accounts for biological influences on the circadian rhythm and so only represents the nature side of the nature-nurture debate. This provides an unrealistic view of human behaviour because in real life both nature and nurture
(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).
Furthermore, the rights of an individual depend on the capacity of the individual to make and apply moral laws. Animals don’t have the capacity to make and apply moral laws; therefore, animals don’t have rights. 1. Is this an inductive or a deductive argument? 2.
It’s human nature and one cannot do anything to stop it. Humans have been created that way. Animals on the other hand, don’t have this ability. They do not have the ability to judge and pick apart a person. The animals in The Wars defy the human tendency to judge.
Animals do not have the ability to speak, have a thought process that can be communicated nor do they understand the human civilization. They deserve compassion and gentle treatment but not rights as far as humans go. 2. America has enough domestic issues of our own that we should be taking care of first. Defending other countries or invading other countries that we have no business interfering in causes us nothing but more problems.
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.