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.
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.
[animal-testing.procon.org] Researchers in Aston University have made it known that it is not worth taking the lives of these animals for testing, because the things we’re trying to make happen with human bodies is very different from the animal body. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. There is a big percentage from the 1950’s up till now that animal testing is flawed by not being correct when it is given to the people it is for. So why not just stop the animal experiments that are not just killing, but also torturing the animals.
(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).
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
Without getting too into it, It basically says that we all have a basic idea of how we want to be treated and how we should treat others. Kind of like the golden rule. Animals however have no moral compass. An animal my feel bad because of the consequences of a situation, but a human can feel compassion for another person in that situation. An animal will not act unless it is doing so for it’s own well being or the well being of it’s genes being passed on.
“Animals do not reason like humans and cannot vote.” Chu asserts, “[b]ut they have all sorts of feelings just like others.” This is apparently his personal assumption, without a solid scientific base to support. Chu also analyzes that “people [in Taiwan] lack respect for life and see animals as merely lifeless objects,” though he cannot possibly know exactly what other people think. Moreover, Chu
These tests are pointless for a couple of reasons. First of all, some scientists think that testing products on animals will show the effect it will have on humans. This is quite unrealistic, because animals are not humans. These days, there are new research methods coming out such as computer models, cell cultures, and human studies. These are more accurate, less expensive, and do not physically harm any animals*.
This argument led to ongoing debate of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Some have pointed out that the premise of the "nature versus nurture" debate seems to contradict the significance of free will. If all our traits are determined by our genes, by our environment, by chance, or by some combination of these acting together, then there seems to be little room for free will To sort out the effects of genes
Those who against animal experiments insist that those painful experimentation on animals should be halted. The pain is not moral whether it is experienced by a child, an adult, or an animal. If it is wrong to impose pain on a human being, it is also wrong on an animal. But many people argue that halting animal experiments would end the progress of science and actually human are taking gain from those experiments. Animal experiments should be acceptable if the pain is minimized in all experiments.