According to Elizabeth Harman, an action that kills an animal even painlessly, is an action that harms the animal. If we indeed have strong moral reasons against causing pain to animals, Harman argues we must also have strong moral reasons against killing animals. This raises an objection to the Surprising Claim, which states that we have strong reasons against causing intense pain to animals, but only weak reasons against killing animals.
The First View claims that killing an animal deprives it of a positive benefit (future life) but does not harm the animal. Modified slightly, the best response to Harman's argument could be as follows:
Intense pain and death are both bad for animals. However, inflicting intense pain to animals versus killing them painlessly after a well cared life are significantly different actions.
Most people agree that the former is often much …show more content…
Is it accurate to subject the chicken slaughterer to the same standards of moral disdain one might cast upon the shark finner? Probably not. Although the sharks were not killed, we tend to have stronger reasons against finning sharks than slaughtering chickens. Adopting such a reasoning is not unfounded. Ultimately, killing is not the same, and cannot be equated with harming.
Harman argues that killing deprives a being of a benefitand therefore harms it. Consider two parents who decide for their terminally ill and comatose child to be mercifully killed through euthanasia. If their decision prevents their child from an undesirable future of abject misery, then the child is not deprived of a future benefit. Although the child is killed, it is incorrect to say he is harmed. The same reasoning applies to a situation where an owner euthanizes his ill pet rather than let it suffer intense pain. Euthanasia kills, but it does not necessarily
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Michael Pollan brings to our attention the arguments that relate to the treatment of animals. He begins his essay with examples talking about how pigs are seen as nothing more than meat and how dogs get their own birthday and Christmas presents. Here he questions how certain animals receive different attitudes from us and makes us think about how each animal has a different fate. Pollan wants us to question ourselves and to look at animals from another perspective and see if they deserve more equality or if we need to have a different attitude towards them all together. These arguments are very effective in that they make us question of whether or not our attitude towards certain animals are different because of how they are used or in our eyes some are just more important than others.
Threatening to diminish the value of life is very dangerous. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, is the practice of doctors intentionally ending a terminally ill patient’s life in what is purportedly a gentle and dignified manner. The term originated in ancient Greek and means “easy death.” Doctors perform euthanasia by administering lethal drugs or by withholding treatment that would prolong the patient’s life. Physician-assisted suicide is also a form of euthanasia, but the difference between the two methods is that in euthanasia, doctors end the patient’s life with lethal injections, whereas, in physician-assisted suicide, patients kill themselves with a lethal amount of drugs prescribed by the doctors.
(Marquis, 1987). Kant and Hence have the arguments that people do not have the duty for considering animal, but their theory is hard to explain is that possible for men would do harm on people because of hurting animal or some people do not inflict animals so that they will not do it on human. The alternative arguments on wrongness of the wanton infliction which considers more on the reader or some people themselves in the situation which the animals may face, so this is plausible. The wrongness of infliction on animals is approved, and the structure to prove this argument is similar with considering the lost of future on adult or young children for abortion, so the arguments which states that abortion is impermissible is powered by the analyze of why infliction of animal is wrong. During
He then talks about how in the Netherlands the law initially said the terminally ill could request euthanasia or PAS but now it is open to the chronically ill those who are suffering from psychological issues, those who are unable to perform the basic required function of everyday living, as well as children. The second arguments states that once given the right, it will be abused and that no legal protection can stop it from being abused. Although it has been proved
Animals also need to endure pain, which gives them value to life. For instance, a mother rabbits cannot save her bunnies from the wolves without trying. Her heroic actions cannot be done unless danger
The two are not arguments against each other, but simply two arguments on either side of the topic. Machan claims that animals do not have rights, but he also says that we should keep in mind that animals can feel pain and enjoyment and that we should consider that when we use them. He says that if we kill them we should do it humanely. Norcross claims that we should not be torturing animals for their use, but he does not specifically say that we cannot kill them. Both conclusions can be true because animals do not have to have rights to stop torturing them.
One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).
While returning to his first arguments about how critics often argue that hunting is immoral because it requires intentionally inflicting harm on innocent creatures. Even people who are not comfortable should acknowledge that many animals have the capacity to suffer. If it is wrong to inflict unwanted pain or death on an animal, then it is wrong to hunt. Today it is hard to argue that human hunting is strictly necessary in the same way that hunting is necessary for animals. The objection from necessary harm holds that hunting is morally permissible only if it is necessary for the hunter’s survival.
Is it right to kill those innocent creatures painfully? No. It’s not right to harm them for our own benefits. Every living soul have rights, this includes animals, and just because they can’t speak up for themselves doesn’t mean we can take that away from them. The fact that they can’t speak is a disadvantage, and it’s unethical for us to use their disadvantage against them for our own benefits.
Steven Hawking, the British physicist asked “We don't let animals suffer, so why humans?” The controversial issues of euthanasia started from 5th Century BC. The Hippocratic Oath prohibited physicians give a lethal drug to anyone, not even if asked for. However, most ancient Greek or Roman physicians ignored. They supported for voluntary euthanasia as opposed to prolonged pain.
The killing of animals, which causes pain is a definition of animal cruelty. To be precise, the terms apathy and empathy can be compared in the exhibition of harming animals. Apathy is one of the reasons why animal cruelty occurs. This is because others feel the pleasure in hurting animals instead of taking care of them due to psychological disorders. For instance, Jeffrey Dahmer is one of the many notorious psychopathic serial killers who torture animals for satisfaction.
Should animals be suffering just because humans are trying to advance our medical techniques? Should they be forced to eat? Should people be allowed to torture them this way? Do you think so? In fact, more than 100 million animals are killed each year during scientific and commercial testing, in the U.S alone.
If people have the right to live, then do they have the right to die? Is it okay to end someone’s life in order to end his/her pain and suffering? These are two of the biggest questions nowadays and I am here to take my stand on this issue. People are easily confused with this due to the fact that on one hand, we know that it is wrong to take a person’s life. On the other hand, it is difficult to see them suffering and in pain for a longer period of time.
Animal Rights Some people assume that just because animals cannot speak that they cannot feel pain. It is not okay to torture living beings that have their own thoughts and breathe the exact same air us humans breathe. It is unjust and selfish to stand by and take no action while everyday hundreds if not thousands of innocent animals die without reason. No matter how much fur or how many limbs the creature has; it should be treated as equal as a person. A heart beat is a heartbeat regardless of the body it’s in.
On the one hand, some people are favorable for killing animals. It has many opinions why they have accepted. Their reasons with cruelty make them get many benefits such as nutrient, knowledge, safety, prevention, and money. The first reason for killing animals is humans killed them for consuming such as pork made from pigs, beef made from cows, and lamp made from sheep. Human’s life exists to cause by plants and animals.