Are Zoos Unethical By:Kalynn Deppe An issue that has been hotly debated since the brink of zoos has been whether they are ethical or not. Although some believe that zoos can be beneficial to animals, thousands of research has shown this not to be true. The main reasons zoos are devious is because, there artificial environments are harmful, the animals are more prone to diseases, and it can damage children's views on society. To begin, zoos are unprincipled due to the fact that they take animals out of the wild and place them in synthetic environments that have failed to meet the animals designated standard of living. For example, research has shown that some larger animals need for space is not fulfilled in their confined cages.
Napoleon mislead and misinformed the animals, under his power. The animals had their own opinions and beliefs but weren’t educated enough to propose them. The farm came to know that “some animals are more equal than others”(134), their last state was as bad as their first. Napoleon formed an alliance with the human enemy to establish his personal dictatorship, the ruling of the pigs became more and more indistinguishable from their human neighbors. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to tell which was which” (141) Orwell’s message again, is that history can repeat itself, we must be careful and prevent that from happening, or we could end up in same situation as before, like the animals
Notable plant scientist, Fred Sack, commented that plants cannot be capable of learning because “the word ‘learning’ should be reserved for animals” while this experiment portrayed their adaptation (Pollan). Because of the criticism about the language in Gagliano’s paper, the hypothesis seems to remain unconfirmed. It appears to me no premise substantially disconfirms the conclusion of “Animal-Like Learning in Mimosa Pudica”, only the disagreement among professionals over what constitutes learning, if anything, in sans-brain life forms. Internally coherent, the main flaw of “Animal-Like Learning in Mimosa Pudica” is in the language used to describe the phenomenons witnessed in the experiment, which would compromise it’s external consistency. Gagliano’s research and idea appears fruitful in many aspects.
As I mentioned above, animals usually have a terrible life in zoos. Someone may disagree with me because the case of cruelty to animals is individual not usual. But everyone has to admit that animals have no freedom and happiness in the zoo. The animals just like the human,we all have our own life, and every life should have its own freedom. It’s right that we usually have a good time in the zoo, but at the same time, do you think of animals who are suffering from loneliness and torment?
The passage is saying that we should treat the animals that we normally eat just like we treat puppies, which are normally treated like family. Morality comes into play and presents that if we don’t torture puppies for our eating pleasures then we should not support factory farms since they torture animals, which end up being eaten for our pleasure. The author is unable to find a morally relevant difference between Fred and people who eat factory raised meat, at least ones that consume the meat that know what the animals have endured to end up on their plates. The passage relates greatly to the view of the author. The author explained that if we condemn Fred’s behavior, which was only to heighten his gustatory experience then shouldn’t we condemn
Animal testing is a very debatable issue. Animal testing is cruel and inhumane because the animals are forced to do things they don 't want to. Animals are different than humans so they make poor test subjects and it is very difficult to create an animal model of human. Animals that are being tested are not protected by any Animal Welfare Act so that means that 95%
Yet, for some reason this is something people are still turning a blind eye too. It is not like we kill these animals for health reasons or survival we do it mainly because it tastes good. As stated by Gary Yourofsky: “The problem is that humans have victimized animals to such a degree, that they aren’t even considered victims. They aren’t even considered at all. They’re nothing.
The most significant of these being seen as products instead of sentient beings and lack of body autonomy. Women and animals are both frequently treated as if their only value is their bodies and that they don’t have intrinsic value as living beings. We’re told we’re only worth something if we’re attached to a man, and animals only if they’re attached to an owner. The complete lack of bodily autonomy for animals should
Research shows on animal-ethics.org, that the use of testing on nonhuman animals could be acceptable ONLY if the happiness of their exploitation causes are far greater than the so-called harm testing really causes. In which, it really is hard to believe because the nonhuman animals are in most cases abruptly mutilated and painfully deprived of their lives after having their positive experiences of life taken away. Testing nonhuman animals takes a ton of suffering within such momentary pleasures, although using animals just doesn’t increase the sum of happiness in the world, but more of decreases the happiness. Utilitarianism cannot accept doing nothing as an option, the harms of those who have suffered by others aren’t the ones who have cause the harms. By reducing the happiness of animals, the people as utilitarians should work against it, whatever the objective must