‘The use of animals in medical research is always wrong.’ Many Christians would not always agree with this view as they believe God created animals before Humans as and therefore it shows Humans are seen as the most important thing that God has made as the story of the Genesis states ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.’ so humans are the only creation of God that have a soul. They would believe animals can be used for medical research, as long as long as the result is for the benefit of humans. This however means the animals should not be treated with cruelty. All Christian denominations also agree that they can keep animals as pets or eat meat as long as the animals have been well treated. Some Christians would also use ‘stewardship’ as means of using animals as the quote from Genesis also states ‘And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens..’ and this suggests as the keeper of all living things on earth, us as humans can do whatever we like.
There are about eight gorillas in the cage. The park claims their gorillas enjoy people watching as much as visitors enjoy watching them. Here are some of the facts that I can find from the tour guide, the sign outside and the class lectures. Gorilla is an endangered species. They are peaceful, family oriented, plant eating animals.
Second, the participants were deceived. According to ethical code of researches, participants should be completely informed what would take place during the experiment in the inform consent form before the experiment, but the researchers did not properly address all the situations to the participants. The violence was completely not expectable by the participants. From the perspective of ethical issue, it was wrong to conduct this experiment, but from the perspective of research, it is right to conduct this experiment. Therefore, I would say that it is worthy to conduct this experiment because the outcomes of experiment are very useful for the discovery of human behaviors.
This quotation show’s how close the two can actually be related to one another. I chose this quote because it gives an understandable comparison between how people feel about zoos and how people feel about religion. This comparison spoke to me because as soon as I read it I knew that that was how I felt about both enclosing animals in zoos and being involved in a specific religion. I also feel that animals are naturally born into the wild, but are forced to either conform to the prey-predator law or die, so for them to be living in a zoo is like heaven, or even more like freedom- they don’t have to continuously be aware of predators, but they live in a cycle they are happy with. This is the same way being involved in religion is for me, I could chose to be free and not follow any religion or practice, but I chose to follow (not extremely closely) but I follow religion and believe in God because that version of reality is much nicer than reality really is.
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.
Then, how can we determine what is okay from that which is not according to our human nature? The nature of human beings is a very complex definition. What human nature may mean to me may not fit with one’s ethical reasoning of what human nature means to another. In this regard, however, human nature to me is anything in which the person freely chooses to do, think, and act on. However, going back to human nature and ethics, we need to clearly define that although human nature differs among different cultures and societies, human nature must not be raped of its value for choosing good, and behaving on what brings the best solution for one’s problems in life.
Support For DeWaal’s Thesis DeWaal claims that when defining morality, the act of morality is not important. He suggests that we focus on the underlining of morality, so when we look at the food sharing (with chimpanzee) we should focus on the levels of tolerance and sensitivity to needs etc. He thinks that just as Darwin looked past the underlying emotion and intentions, we are to also do and that it’s not about niceness of animals that matter; what is relevant is if they have capacities for exchanging and revenge for enforcing
Ethical Treatment of Animals SOC120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Instructor: Raeven Chandler October 3, 2012 When someone mistreats an animal this is considered wrong. This can be considered an illegal act and a morally wrong act. Animals are innocent creatures that have no voice of their own and therefore need to have someone speak on their behalf. The use of deontology can resolve the issue of the ethical treatment of animals. Deontology resolves this issue by focusing on ways that we can treat animal fairly and creating laws that protect animals.
These laws will alleviate the problem. The thing is that judges should take animal cases more serious and charge people with animal abuse instead of just letting the case pass by and ignoring it. Also, people should start following this laws and treating animals better. If you take a pet into your house you take it in as a member of your family not as some animal you’re going to use to fight or abuse. These laws are a good solution, but if people don’t follow them then they aren’t working and there should be harsher laws towards animal cruelty.
I disagree with this quote because I think that a criminal is someone who has broke the law and committed a crime, which I believe is a very wrong thing to do. However I also think that depending on the seriousness of the crime, each criminal should be treated according to that. This is because I don’t think that a shoplifter should be given the same treatment as a murderer because this would not be fair on each criminal. Some Christians may agree with this quote as they may believe that everyone is equal. This is because they believe that God created every person the same and we should keep it that way, no matter what crime they have committed, otherwise we could be seen as disobeying God’s wishes.