You could save an animal from drowning, but you could save a person from drowning too; the choice is difficult. You could protest for animals to have rights and not be tortured at slaughterhouses and still eat them from factories that do things like kill them in an abusive way. Animal rights, animals should have some rights with some limitations. I have issues involving this topic about animal rights because i have mixed emotions about how we can experiment and torture animals but still have them as pets. In articles by Jeff McMahan, “Eat Animals The Nice Way”, and by Maureen Nandi Mitra, “Animals Are Persons, too”, they talk from two different positions where we should eat animals and another where we shouldn’t experiment on them and let them be.
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.
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.
Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia.
In her work “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights,” Vicki Hearne challenges common beliefs of animal rights, arguing that animal rights groups do very little to actually benefit animals. She argues that natural selection should be allowed to take place for wild animals, and animals such as cats and dogs should not be seen as property. To persuade the audience to support her position, she uses ethos, pathos, and logos. Her credibility as a trainer makes the logic behind her views reliable, her logic reinforces the examples she uses, and she appeals to emotion using her relationship with her Airedale, Drummer, to support everything her argument is saying. Through these strategies, Vicki Hearne effectively counters the current, popular views of the
Every year, billions of animals are killed for human consumption. Millions of animals are being used in the laboratory for product testing that would benefit humans. Thousands of animals are killed for their fur, skin, or trunk. People only think of animals as species that are lower and will never be equal to them. Ideas such as animals exist for humans even existed.
Looking at the utilitarian approach, it is seen to have significant meaning for both those that are for and against gun control. As the utilitarian theory approach focuses on the theory that “an action is ethical if the good that it is predicted to produce outweighs the bad”. In this case, depending on the perspective of the individual, it can have significantly lead to different conclusions that supports both sides of the gun control debate. Specifically, gun control proponents have argued that the utilitarian approach is justification for gun control as the banning of gun ownership will protect society and make the world a better place through a lower chance of gun violence despite the restraining of civil liberties. On the other hand, gun control
Ethical Considerations in Genetics and Genomics Ethical duties of genetic testing is a challenge among healthcare workers. Ethical dilemmas are created due to situations resulting from genetic testing. Ethical dilemmas is created when genetic testing reveals vital information to a patient and the patient refuses to disclose information to family members that can be affected. Healthcare workers are to protect the privacy of patient’s health records according to the Health Insurance Probability and Accountability Act (HIPPA)
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham. It attempts to justify moral rules and principles and holds that the best moral action is one that maximizes utility. John Stuart Mill refined and wrote a book on this theory, in 1863. ‘What Utilitarianism is’ is the second chapter of the book, ‘Utilitarianism’. Below is the summary and critical evaluation of his writing.
Kant’s ethical theory Kant’s ethical theory relies on the principles that the only one thing, which is good without qualification, is a good will. In Kant’s term, a good will is a will, where all taken decisions are fully determined by the Moral Law or moral demands. He states that all talents of the mind, which can include intelligence, wit, judgment, courage and others can be definitely named as good traits, however, at the same time these qualities can also become extremely bad on the condition that the will of using them is not good. Kant believed that some kinds of actions should be prohibited, such as murder, theft or lying, even though the consequences of these actions would lead to bringing more happiness than the alternative (Bonevac,