It has been believed that classical conditioning can work for the majority of people/animals in order to get them to behave a particular way. According to the experiment performed, that belief has been disproven. While classical conditioning may work for some people/animals, it does not work for all. It seemed like it was more likely that those that could see what was being read, and was reading along, would be more likely to be conditioned that those that could not see it, or did not read along. The experiment could have been altered in that when the students tap their pencil to “the” and the bell sounds, they are praised.
The forced swimming test evaluates the possibility of rodents to escape from an uncomfortable situation. This test can be used in preclinical studies to measure the effectiveness of antidepressants (Porsolt et al., 2001). Based on this, Lucky et al (1997) have set up some parameters in the FST, and thus one can distinguish two types of escape behavior during the forced swim test behavior; are horizontal movements while swimming and climbing, which are vertical movements with the legs directed from the
This helps these rats at night because it is the time that they go foraging for food in areas that contain many food resources. Just like the Rattus Norvegicus forages to find its food, these rats also forage to build their nest. Any leaves, garbage, twigs, paper, feathers, and shredded vegetation that these rats find will be what their nest is made out of. Then, the burrows that these rats dig themselves are used as a place to store food, nesting, and an area to hide. The rat species Rattus Norvegicus tends to live in big packs, with a dominant male as their “leader”.
To begin, Kant seemingly does not at first glance argue that animals do not have values, only that their value is not morally equal to that of humans. He even goes so far as to define plants and animals as organizational being; those with purpose and the ability to be purposeful. He, like, Regan believes that animals have inherent worth. His main distinction is that animals do not have moral rights and have no self-evaluation or “I”. Since,
Shaping itself is a process that shapes an animal or a person to perform a targeted behavior through the rewarding of the expected behavior. Essentially, through a series of positive reinforcers, or rewards, I could get this child in preschool to clean up the crayons along with the puzzle pieces and also stop him from pushing his classmates. I am aware that I would have to offer the child a different reward each time, because if I were to only offer food, eventually the child would be too full to even listen. Thus, the shaping of his behavior would be utterly ineffective. Hence, I could offer food along with different combinations of
After he was involved in playing with the blocks, I would re-introduce the rat, bunny or dog while keeping albert preoccupied with his blocks. I would try to bring Albert’s attention to the animals with a very soothing voice and offer a type of protection in my body language towards Albert. I would continue to recondition him by speaking in a positive, calm, and soothing voice while I myself played with the animal. If he became scarred or began to cry, I would pick him up and soothe him, but I would continue to interact with the animal as usual with a positive attitude. After a while, I would expect Little Albert to gain curiosity and begin to try to imitate my actions towards the animal.
Because animals are unable to do this, they do not have rights. However, Cohen adds that just because animals don’t have rights doesn’t mean we have to be careless in our regards towards them. Cohen continues to add that we have a moral obligation to not inflict any unnecessary suffering on animals. To further build his argument, he also takes on a possible objection that claims that because some human might be unable to be autonomous or be morally able, they don’t. He rebuts this objection by saying his statements apply to members of species as whole, therefore, all humans would have
Nevertheless, despite their arguments being supported by validated and reliable evidence, both authors are biased towards their viewpoints. Initially, the authors argue that the domestication of animals must be prohibited as it violates the basic rights of animals and raises moral questions. One right that animals must obtain is the right not to be property. When animals are a property they are mistreated and not protected. Despite the laws that governments such as the US and UK established towards animals, they only seem to be effective when a conflict arises between the owner and the animal.
This view can also be seen as being ‘speciesist’. History shows that the reason one didn’t belong to the same group was often the reason for denying them moral status (racism, sexism, etc.). So, considering these positions have changed over time, can being speciesist also be seen as a product of our prejudices? Argument from Marginal Cases Discarding the speciesist argument as a product of human prejudice, we need a compelling reason to deny moral status to animals – there needs to be a uniquely human quality shared by *all* humans that makes us worthy of moral status. Here, we cannot consider qualities such as ‘having human DNA’ because that’s just
With laws having their limits the laws may not protect animals under all circumstances. As a society there should be a continuation of proceeding to develop new laws. Animals have rights that are not being protected or considered when they are not given the chance to live without suffering or harm. Additionally animal rights are violated when they are used as products for experimentation. Animal experimentations