Bonnie Steinbock's Argument Analysis

Gretchen Weirob’s argument is based on the view that physical identification is more important towards personal identity rather than psychological features. For example, Weirob believes that a person can identify with their body because they can see their body and it’s certain capacity; the body is very rational. Which is why she would not want her brain to be put into someone else’s body. She believes the body is the unique differentiation to an individual’s identification.

In the articles of Jeremy Rifkin, Victoria Braithwaite, and Ed Yong, there's a deep research and debate whether animals should be given the right to have human rights or not. All authors include their perspective on the issue and provide scientific evidence. However, I believe that there should be a separation of rights between animals and humans because there is no biological basis for drawing the line. Giving the right to apes, what factors exclude other mammals like dogs, cats, and birds.

These five principles represent considerations one must take into account when adjudicating competing rights or conflicts between humans and non-humans, and can serve as an outline for reaching decisions about what duties outweigh others. The principles of proportionality and minimum wrong can be applied to cases in which there is a conflict between basic interested of animal or plants, and non-basic interest of humans. When referring to “interest” it refers that whatever objects or events serve to preserve or protect the good of a living organism. This refers to whether or not an organism likes or dislikes something, feels pain or pleasure, or has any sentient desires, goals, or is concerned with what happens to it. One must take into account the degree to which the interest holds. This means the interest of an organism can vary in degrees of comparative importance. A basic interest is the very basic or essential goods an organism requires in order to live and survive, while a non-basic interest involves things such as culture, art, and

Norcross believe that one should not eat meat that is raised in a factory. He uses an argument about torturing puppies and eating their brains. Although his argument about Fred and his extreme cruelty to feel the sensation of eating chocolate is cruel, it puts one in a state of mind to pay close attention to his point. What is his point? Eating animals that are raised in factories are just is cruel as torturing puppies for one’s own pleasure. He states that Fred’s pleasures do not make it morally permissible to torture puppies. This is compared to livestock in factory farms because, they undergo the same kind of torture and abuse. His conclusion is that, torturing puppies and eating meats from factory raised cattle are one in the same and is immoral.

As per Bernard Williams, “Utilitarianism fails to respect the fundamental integrity of a person”.3 As long as the majority are satisfied, minorities can be abused. As discussed in the frictional example of ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’, by living in a Omelas society where utilitarianism prevails, our wellbeing is said to be built on the misery of others.4

In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism

We are not alone on this Earth. We, humans, have animals by our side. We share this inhabitable planet together with animals, and they should have same right as we do on this beautiful planet. Animals are pure instinctual living creatures who never think before following their instincts. They won’t think otherwise before killing a person. Animals who are able to surpass these barriers are able to receive our empathy and their rights, but in Jeremy Rifkin’s, “A Change of Heart About Animals,” he talks ideas about all animals should receive our empathy for great acts of the few. The individual animal receive its equal rights, not by a single entity achieving it for the mass, but by the individual must showing intelligences, emotions and feelings, and most importantly, the ability to co-exist with others; including human and other animals alike.

No woman is allowed to be angry. This is the message that is subliminally delivered by those who tend to accuse the anger of a woman as a played-out weapon. For far too long has the

John T. Noonan’s “An Almost Absolute Value in Human History” he proceeds to argue about abortion and when an undeveloped human should be given the rights of an actual human. John T. Noonan poses the question, “how does one determine the humanity of a being.” With this question on hand he considers four ways to consider when “determining humanity.”

In this passage by Royal Dixon, the author incorporated various persuasive techniques to build an extremely well-crafted essay, which encourages the readers’ respect toward the animals. By emphasizing the common aspects of the animals and the human, the author attempted to convey his points that animals deserves more respect. His logic and persuasiveness was strengthened through rhetorical question, criticism of the limitation of science, and emphasis on the interconnection between humans and animals. The author is mindfully persuasive from the very beginning starting off his essay by rhetorical questions. His intentional manipulation of structure of placing the rhetorical questions directly after the commonly held concept of “we cannot treat men He claims that the science is imperfect due to its defect of leaving out feelings. The author first discusses the descriptions of human in the scientific approach that humans are “merely a machine to be explained in terms of neurons and nervous impulses, heredity and environments and reactions to outside stimuli”. Consequently, however, he incorporated rhetorical question, “who is there who does not believe that there is more to man that that?”, provoking the empathy that humans are indeed much more valuable beings that such simplistic explanation. He attempts use this created empathy and apply this concept to the animals as well. This encouraged the readers to approach this matter not with the heads, but with hearts, changing the perception of animals not as a mere inferior creature, but as a being of intellect and feelings as humans. Although the author revealed his unsatisfaction toward mechanistic interpretation, he approaches his argument in a scientific way to counter his audience, who may still disagree with him based on the scientific fact of superiority in intelligent of humans over the animals.

Valerie Wangnet's article introduces factory farming from the viewpoint of the livestock. She first tells an awful story of dairy cows bellowing all night long because their newborn calves had been removed for slaughter. This created an issue with nearby neighbors of the farm to which police released a statement claim that the cows were not in any distress. Wangnet chastises society for valuing the lives of some animals over that of others. She continues to compare the ways in which pets are treated compared to farm animals, and then lists the many cruelties that are inflicted upon farm animals. Wangnet concludes the article with discussing how society chooses to ignore the moral responsibility that we have to protect these animals from suffering.

I, like Mary Midgley, agree with Peter Singer in that humans should not harm or be cruel to animals if it is not completely necessary. I agree with his argument regarding animals being used for cosmetic testing and medical testing, and with his argument against harsh factory farming practices, but I find his moral argument against the use of animals for food questionable. I believe meat-eating as a dietary practice for all of humankind is justifiable. Peter Singer implies that humans and non-humans are equal in more ways than many people like to recognize, but one thing he fails to acknowledge is that humans and non-humans also share a shared instinct for survival.

Barbra moved to Minneapolis and says she does not know exactly why she chose this place. She says Minnesota is a liberal state and is generous to its welfare poor. Internet search has shown that there are jobs for $8 an hour and studio apartments for $400 or less. This time around , she was looking for a more comfortable situation.

Mary Aah argument should be tested on goodwill for the first full year. In FASB concepts statement No. 7, using cash flow information and present value in Accounting Measurements, for estimating the fair values used in testing both goodwill and other intangible assets that are not being amortized for impairment. Goodwill of a reporting unit should be tested for impairment between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would not reduce the fair value of reporting unit.

treat the people as subhuman, and even it is when we treat the animals as objects without