He does convince me that there is an issue with us assuming things for the nonhumans because we do not know what they want. In order for us to have the luxuries we have today, for example, make-up and shampoo they needed to be tested before the products were official and ready for use. Singer cites two experiments and they are not very nice when they experiment on the animals. He
Animals should not be used for scientific experimentation Using Animals for scientific experimentation is in-humane, this act will decrease the amount of animal population, and therefore animals should not be used for scientific experimentation. Animals should not be used for scientific experimentation for they are living things, this indicates that they have feelings to. Also, animals are not a direct replica of humans, indicating that while medicines or antidotes for specific disease that may cure animals, this result does not mean that it will work successfully on humans. Furthermore, animals should not be used for scientific experimentation because animals deserve freedom just like humans. They live not to be used by scientists for experimentation, but to stabilize the ecosystem.
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.
We have no right to enslave these creatures and impose our wishes the way we want. We are oblivious to the fact that these animals are caged and forced to live in an artificial environment, it is very difficult for them to survive in such a habitat. They are deprived of space and natural fresh air which they enjoy when they are allowed to live freely in a national park or a wildlife sanctuary. If we think that merely feeding them daily and keeping them caged while depriving them of their freedom is a better way towards their conservation then we are wrong.In zoos animals are restricted to limited areas.This creates a problem for them to mate and breed too. (Note to Kofi: Sometimes, supervision by a well-trained authority is necessary for a nearly extinct species to survive…those kinds of places are called Wildlife Sanctuaries.
Admittedly, perhaps during the time of Descartes, the thought of animals having emotions was preposterous but given today’s notion of treating animals as if they were human, the idea of animal emotions does raise an argument against Descartes. Moreover, animals in modern psychological studies are under strict guidance as to their care and use in experimental studies. If animals were simply unreasoning machines, modern psychology would not have developed the American Psychological Association’s
If more people did not rely so much on emotions and relied more on intelligence, then problems like this would not arise. Despite groups’ protests, there have been no laws established in banning rodeo in the United States because of lack of evidence in the immoral treatment of animals with which rodeos are accused. Rodeo is not a sport that supports the cruelty of animals. Research shows there are many rules, regulations and even dedicated veterinarians put into place to safeguard the wellbeing of the animals. Organizations and people who protest rodeo accuse “rodeo thugs” of partaking in animal abuse.
It is a fact that zoos exist in major cities of the world. Nowadays, while many people are in favour of zoos, others claim that zoos should not exist and the animals should live in their natural habitat. I would like to put some pros and cons of zoos and let each person decide on their own what they believe. Here are some arguments against zoos. First of all, animals should not be held in captivity in big cages because they are living creatures and they need to be free.
Anderson argues that sentience alone is not sufficient for a right to not be eaten. I will argue that Anderson’s essay succeeds. Animal welfare, animal rights, and environmentalist advocates all have their own criterion of how they base their beliefs of treatment of nonhumans. To completely understand and agree with Anderson, you must first understand what each these three theoretical approaches mean. Animal welfare advocates believe that any nonhuman has moral considerability if they have the capacity to suffer; their interests should be given equal weight regardless of the species.
Behaviourist approach Strengths: * The approach is scientific and attempts to formulate laws of human behaviour. * Animals other than humans can be used to study learning and do not raise ethical issues that would arise if such experiments were conducted on humans. * The environment is seen as the sole determinant of behaviour. This means that new behaviours can be learned by people suffering from psychological problems such, such as phobias. Limitations: * The behaviourist approach has been criticised because of its denial of free will, seeing human behaviour as mechanistic and determined by reinforcement and punishment.