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?
We shouldn’t cause damage to creature’s homes just because it is on our land. Shouldn’t put out harmful things like plastic rings that get tangled up in birds feet and wings. Put chemicals in the water which kills everything that lives or drinks that water source. We all need to be careful when we are putting stuff outside. I would do trade-offs for endangered animal.
The phrase; “bred to kill” and “aggressive killer” are thrown around without hesitation from those that are not familiar with the breed. In the Pit Bull debate, the word "vicious" functions to vindicate the breed and cause a lot of negative reactions from the press and the general public, this aggression is nurtured and not innate. The fact that they are publicly ousted as a particularly fearsome breed doesn’t allow people to form their own opinions and forces them to feel afraid of them. Fear is a feeling of apprehension and a response that is both physiological and psychological, to the perception of danger or harm (Petersen 1996). When we hear of horror stories in the media our minds are made up for us without having an informed argument from both sides of the Pit Bull debate.
Norcross compares the behavior of meat eating Americans to Fred’s behavior. The first point is that Americans do not directly torture the meat that they consume, whereas Fred was directly mutilating the puppies. Another difference is that some people are unaware of the conditions that the animals on factory farms endure, but due to online resources and movements more and more people are becoming aware of the animal’s treatment so that is becoming an unreasonable excuse. The next commonly used defense for eating meat is that one person can not make a difference. The animals will be tortured either way, so one person not eating meat will not save enough lives to make a difference.
Mr. Barnett believes that killing sharks will prevent them from killing humans, but this is not true, and it puts the lives of humans in danger. There is no proof that reducing the number of sharks will also reduce the number of shark-related deaths to humans; this just creates an environment with less sharks. Also,
However, Curley threatens “(he’s) going to shoot the bastard (himself) even if (he’s) only got one hand. (He’s) gonna get ‘im.” Although Curley’s threat seems to put Lennie in imminent danger, these are only words. There was nothing to say that Curley would have definitely killed him, he may have only tortured him. George saved Lennie from a potential death. In addition to Curley though, George’s action can be seen as an act of justice as he kept others out of harm’s way from Lennie’s inexcusable but accidental strength.
There are multiple reasons stated in Rachel's article on why it is wrong to eat meat. The main point in her article is that to eat meat is to support a cruel system of meat production. Rachels argues against Kant's belief that animals do not have a moral standing and are merely a means to an end, which is man. Rachels believes that
First of all animal cruelty is a natural problem because it affects animal, it violates their rights, leaving them with serious physical or psychological injuries that may cause them death. Also when they take species out of their wild environment, and put them under control of the humans for entertainment and experiments, they are affecting the natural balance. Under the control of humans, they are likely to be abused and mistreated. It is a cultural issue because people from Spain and around the world actually believe that the fighting bull is only for fight, so that is why they kill them, because it´s entertainment and they give them a honorable death. Also, in the case of the whale killing, it is also cultural because in some parts of the world, they have used some whale parts in order to do traditional medicine.
Try the questions below. It is fine if you feel that you are not up to my mark, some do and that’s why they are working for me. I don’t sacked workers unless they do something stupid like stealing from me. I will push the police all the way to ensure that you go to court. So think about it before you try or are tempted to do so.
It may not do any harm, but on the other hand, it may.” This shows the dangerous factor of the food. This can relate back to Frankenstein, for he doesn’t want to create another monster because of the harm it could do or not do. He doesn’t want to take that chance of a mistake again. This relates back to the theme of the dangerous curiosity if knowledge. In the second article, Fox News states that they wont know the effect it will have on the animals and society, “…many individuals have qualms about