In the film, "Louis Theroux's African Hunting Party", South African wild game farmers advocate trophy hunting as a necessary activity for saving certain species from inevitable extinction due to illegal wildlife poaching. However, when considering Peter Singer's utilitarian theory on the ethical treatment of non-human animals, the process of shooting and killing an animal to preserve its species seems counterintuitive. Applying Singer's perspective, my position is that trophy hunting is morally unacceptable as it reasserts speciesism by disregarding the suffering of the animals being murdered for sport. Indeed, the act of purchasing a hunting permit so that a person may kill an animal for its material value dismisses the animal's personhood.
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
In An Animal’s Place, Michael Pollan describes the growing acknowledgement of animal rights, particularly America’s decision between vegetarianism and meat-eating. However, this growing sense of sentiment towards animals is coupled with a growing sense of brutality in farms and science labs. According to Pollan, the lacking respect for specific species of animals lies in the fact that they are absent from human’s everyday lives; enabling them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are doing when partaking in brutality towards animals. He presents arguments for why vegetarianism would make sense in certain instances and why it would not and ultimately lead to the decision of eating-meat while treating the animals fairly in the process. Pollan
Singer presents his argument from a utilitarian perspective, meaning the only thing of intrinsic value is welfare or happiness. He argues that all living organisms should be given equal consideration, and because they can suffer and have interests, their interests should be taken into account. Singer often compares the idea that at one time, women’s rights were thought of as a ridiculous thought, but women like Mary Wollstonecraft persisted until change was made. “If the argument for equality was sound when applied to women, why should it not be applied to dogs, cats, and horses?” (380.)
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.
The article, “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?” by Ed Yong is trying to convince the reader to see a different side to primates. The Great Ape Project set legal rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutan. United Kingdom and New Zealand protect great apes from experimentation. For the Great Ape Project they are basically setting laws and higher standards for primates to me experimented on or held captive.
Rights are against the use of force and they are our primary if not only our means of survival. There is only one fundamental right: To live successfully, a man has to make his own choices as well as animals too (Roleff,2014,p.33). There is a huge difference between giving animals their rights which is less than human beings and not to give them rights at all. Nowadays animals are presented in many places of entertainment such as zoos and cruces as well as aquariums where the audients pay a lot of cash to watch fun and exciting things going on, it sure makes us happy but what about the animals are they happy too? Are places of entertainment appropriate for wild animals to live in it normally?
“To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man," this was once said by Mahatma Gandhi on why we should appreciate animals as much as human beings. Animals are gifts from God and without them, the world would not be complete. Millions of animals are subjected to imprisonment and have terrible procedures done in order to satisfy our needs. By needs, these creatures are being tortured or killed for the products we use.
Introduction This assignment is targeting our ability to investigate a topic and from that we are required to formulate an opinion on our findings. The topic chosen in my assignment is to discuss how phenomenology becomes a fundamental concern in the works of Peter Zumthor through both formal and special characteristics of his design of the Steilneset Witches Memorial in Norway. Firstly, in will give a brief description of the project, of the architect and the school of phenomenology. From that I will be addressing my findings on these topics.
INTRODUCTION “The greatness of a nation is judged by the way it treats its animals” - Mahatma Gandhi Whether at home, on the farm, or at the dining table, animals play an important role in day-to-day life in the society. They happen to be companions, a source of livelihood, entertainment, inspiration, and of course food and clothing to people all over the world. Yet animals can and do exist independent from people and, as living beings, they arguably have certain interests separate from their utility to humanity. As such, the society is increasingly faced with legal, economic, and ethical dilemmas about the proper status for animals and the extent to which their interests should be respected, even when these conflict with what is best for humans. These aspects have resulted in a new
In Naussbam’s writings, she elaborates on what it means to be a human or an animal, and how they are similar and dissimilar in the ways of compassion and humanity. The idea of entitlement is one she uses to pinpoint the major differences between the two and how humans radiate compassion and humanity. Entitlements can be classified as specific ‘freedoms’ and ‘experiences’ granted to either humans, and/or animals with a direct link to justices that are granted to each. Entitlements alone can be defined as rights that are given to one by some sort of law, whether that be a constitutional one or a morally obligatory one. When looking at a species’ entitlements, we can obtain a better idea of what rights they are given by each other and
In Michael Pollan’s article, he addresses the topic as to whether or not it is morally right to consume animals. Pollan’s opinion towards consuming animals is pretty explicit in the beginning. He saw no harm in consuming animals, but his opinion started to change after reading Peter Singer’s book, “Animal Liberation”. While reading through the book, Pollan learns that eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals, and killing animals for clothing are all viewed as “speciesism”. He quotes, “speciesism”- a neologism I had encountered before only in jokes- as a form of discrimination as indefensible as racism or anti-Semitism”.