Are animals as important as human beings? Peter Singer answers this question in his article “Animal Liberation.” Singer supports the idea that animals are as important as human beings. People should stop seeing animals as a means of satisfying human wants and see the animal as equals. Exploitation of animal will stop when humans will accept that it is unnecessary.
Güray Yiğit 101-1 Mr. Dunkley December 18, 2015 Animal rights and moral obligations on animals are the most disputable issues of our century. The use of nonhuman animals in researches is a subject of concern which is highly concern that everyone is looking at this issue from various different perspectives. Gary L. Francione looks from both of the sides that whether we have rights to use animals laboratory experimentations or not, by giving different arguments about the issue of biomedical research. Many people believe that it is inaccurate how animals suffer unreasonably. In animal testing, nonhuman animals are used to test the possible harms and exhibit the level of effectiveness of products in the fields of medicine and cosmestics.
It denies the existence of organisms learning or acquiring any kind of trait or character through genetic inheritance. It downplayed the importance of heredity. Behaviourism beleieves in sceientific methodology and that only observable behaviour should be studiesed because this can be measured objectively. It denies the idea of people having free will and says that environment is the guiding factor which dtermines all kinds of behaviours. Behaviourism eventually came to relate overt behaviours or 'responses ' to observable events in the environment or 'stimuli '.
There is no unambiguous evidence that proves animal testing is essential for medical researches. In fact, the increasing evidence shows that it is actually an ineffective way to understand human physiology and others because humans are different from other animals in anatomy, genetics and metabolism. If science research field was given enough fund to do animal-free alternatives, other solutions to replace animal testing can certainly be found. In reality, Humane Research Australia (HRA) reports that many discoveries made by non-animal methods were later verified by animal experiments, which gives false credit to animal use and indirectly making people rely more on and have faith in animal testing. For example, HRA notes, “Ovarian function was demonstrated by physician Dr. Robert.
Many people invest their time and money in purchasing animals as a pet. It may come as a shock, but PETA also believes that no one should purchase any animal as a pet, and if one does own a pet they should be released. Amanda Radke earned a degree in agricultural communications at the South Dakota State University (“Amanda Radke, Freelance Contributor”). She voiced her opinion on the subject of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in an article, “PETA Hates Pet Ownership; Kills 1,456 Cats and Dogs in 2015.” Radke states, “It’s no surprise to farmers and ranchers that the extremist animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has a different idea of what constitutes proper animal care.”
However, Robert Garner and Sarah Rose A. Miller who are opponents of animal experimentation claim that it is unacceptable because it causes animals to suffer. Two aspects of the arguments about animal research are about the use of laboratory animals and the idea of using substitution for live animals, and although the authors mostly disagree
What is justice about, are animals moral beings, are they deserving of justice? And how should justice to animals be applied? John Rawls argues that whereas only moral agents are entitled to justice, animals by lacking this characteristic are excluded; but this does not mean that we have no moral duties to animals. He prioritizes justice over other values, especially over morality. For him as for other liberal thinkers, the moral status is excluded for these recipients of justice.
She makes a strong point about animal rights: “animal rights and human rights go hand in hand. Lack of respect for other species often translates into insensitivity and cruelty towards our own species” (Poorva Joshipura 4). Animal rights is the idea that animals should live free of humans taking advantage of them (“Animal Rights” 1). According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, “cruelty to animals is one trait that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers” (Joshipura 4) Additionally, the American Psychiatric Association classifies cruelty towards animals as an indicator of a mental disorder (Animal Cruelty 2). Joshipura’s point of view shows why animals should not be harmed.
The use of pathos is definitely shown at the beginning of the article, but not through out. When Iglesias states, “The animals usually end up being put down after a matter of days, or if they keep going, weeks or even years in such horrific conditions”(Iglesias 1), then “As such, in 1989 British brand The Body Shop became the very first international beauty brand to campaign against the practice of animal testing in cosmetics, in partnership with Cruelty Free International”(Iglesias 1), she shifts the main focus of the article. Iglesias discusses different companies fighting against animal testing rather than discussing the negative effects of animal experimentation. The rest of the article consists of quotes from different people. For instance, Iglesias quoted, '"No animal should get tested for the sake or expense of cosmetics especially since we value our own lives.
However, that line of thinking quickly clashes with the fact that with the help of exactly such testing, with the sacrifice of those animal lives, human lives are saved in return. Who are we to object to the expedition of finding a cure for someone’s son’s or daughter’s illness on the basis that it would be cruel toward some animals, which fact is not up for debate, it is indeed downright monstrous. And if one person had the conviction to deny themselves the cure, what gives them the right to forbid others from using it. In the end the simplest question presents itself, whether testing experimental drugs and treatments on humans is more sane and logical rather than animal testing, and then there is a line which might as well cease progress. A line which demands not to be crossed, the line that demands human lives be handled with caution and care, the line which will cause baby steps instead of strives
In the essay, “Their Deaths Are Not Elegant: Portrayal of Animals in Margret Atwood’s writings” Maria Moss Analyzes Margaret Atwood’s works and presents an argument that implies an underlining meaning in her stories and novels. Moss asserts that Atwood’s works present animals as independent individuals and as entities that do not promote humanistic uniqueness. Moss is right in her claims that animals are independent of humans, but she seems on more dubious ground when she claims that the animals in Atwood’s poems are independent in the notion of promoting humanistic uniqueness. In this essay I will contend that Atwood uses her works to compare humanistic and animalistic traits in a way that foreshadows human uniqueness. For instance, in Our Cat
This illustrates the idea that moral of non humans is extrinsic which means its valued for external reasons (Murray, February 7, 2017). Premise two shows that the animals lose in any necessary conflict. It seems to not include other non-humans besides animals as capable of winning conflict such as plants which
(Rethinking Humanity: The Chimera Debate) Human chimera upsets many religious groups because of the inhumane treatment of animals. This also questions our human dignity. Another reason is because chimeras raise scientific problems. One article says, “A chimera provides the perfect
“The Zookeeper’s Wife” by Diane Ackerman reveals the true story of Jan and Antonia Żabiński, two authentic zookeeper’s who risked their lives by being a part of an underground resistance towards Hitler. When all the animals were taken away from the zoo, Jan and Antonia used their free space to hide refugees until safe passage to a new home was discovered. Throughout the book Ackerman relates many experiences to freedom and confinement. Some people believe that animals should not be kept in zoos. Others believe that as long as animals feel like they are in their natural habitat that being in a zoo is acceptable.
My objective is to address this question working within a utilitarian perspective. I believe that there are two main reasons why is important to address this problem within the utilitarian approach. First, utilitarianism has proven to be a great tool in the animal rights movement. The 'equal consideration of interest for all who can experience pleasure and pain' is a simple and powerful maxim to defend the need to transform the way we treat non-human animals. Even if Peter Singer did not start the animal rights movement, he was the one who popularised it.