So to protect these animals, we’ve created zoos and nature parks for the animals, but are both of them really benefiting the animals? Although they may seem to keep them safe from being hurt, it’s taking them away from their home. To start off, We need to make animals feel safe and not put them though pressure or force them to live in a secluded their entire life. That reason being; because Zoos don’t really protect the animals mindsets, Nature may be better for them but we can’t force animals to mate, and we need to stop hunting endangered species. Zoos might help with protecting these endangered animals, but it turns their mind into something else.
The most obvious one is the debate about the consumption of animals: is it morally justified to raise and kill animals for food? It is now widely accepted, even by many meat eaters, that the treatment of animals in factory farms is morally unjustifiable. In contrast to this, less intensive or traditional farming seems to be justified as long as the animals live, on balance, decent lives, and are killed painlessly. The justification for this position comes from the idea of replaceability. However, this position would lead to questions about environmental sustainability and resource distribution that could be enough to cause utilitarians to reject such practices.
As the global warming becomes a much more serious problem, scientists suggest to place a tax on meat and dairy to decrease greenhouse emission. They found that raising livestock is a large source of greenhouse emission. A successful tax on these good could cut the consumption of the meat and dairy and directly reduce the greenhouse emission and improve human health. The meat and dairy business actually has negative externalities of production to the society. Negative externalities of productions arise when the production of a good spillover negative cost on a third party, which is often times the environment as whole.
Animals suffer greatly when taken out of their natural habitat (Aronson). People have been restricting animal independence for years. Animals have been put in zoos and other places solely for the benefit of humans (Issitt). “We all go to great lengths to ensure our own survival and the survival of our families and communities.” (Aronson). Therefore why should the freedom of animals be taken away for the benefit of humans.
Ask the experimenters Why is it okay to morally experiment on animals and they will answer “animals are not like us”. Ergo, Animal experimentation rests on logical contradiction. (Charles R. Magel). Moreover, when humans act inhumane we call them “animals” yet the only “Animal” that displays cruelty is “humanity”. Lastly, we have moved away from studying human disease in humans, the problem is animal testing does not work and its time we stopped dancing around the problem.
My personal opinion on GMO’s is they could be beneficial but right now they are more detrimental. I understand the need to produce food that can accomplish more nutritiously and in the space provided, but I disagree with the underlying cruelty and uncertainty that shadows the industry. The fact of the matter is we simply do not have enough information and responsibility to alter organisms’ genetics successfully. Evidence has shown that pigs that are fed GMO crops have heavier uteruses, stomach inflammation, and possibly even more deformities of newborns than pigs fed non-GMO crops (Carman, 2013). If these problems are occurring in pigs, they surely can’t be healthy for human consumption.
He breaks the article into four main topics: what hurts the most, whether or not animal lovers are nature haters, are vegetarians bigots, and whether or not animals have rights. He mentions that many philosophers debate whether the suffering farm animals go through is even necessary to consider due to the success that comes from the production of animal products. He furthermore writes that although animal lovers and environmentalists do not always see eye-to-eye, they agree that it is against reputable morals to support the factory farming of animals. He cleverly concludes the article by stating that if one has strong moral values, then they should not support factory-farmed
Throughout history there has been countless research, projects, and discoveries that could be considered controversial. The one thing that they all have in common is that they all would cause some form of change. This change could be as minute as building a walmart next to a high income neighborhood to using animals to test human products. A new example of research that has caused controversy is the cloning of animals. Whether it be cloning pets to cloning the dairy cows that produce the most milk, people tend to feel strongly about whether or not cloning should be legal in the United States.
Looking at pets for example, society implements laws protecting these animals because becoming aware of a pet in pain would lead to human discomfort due to numerous facts such as the strong friendly bond people have with their pets. Though if we look at the case of eating meat, most of society does not extend their moral code to protect the animals farmed or hunted for food because they are protecting their interests such as the pleasure they enjoy from the taste of meat or the energy it gives their bodies. The interest of not having to pay more than required is also a strong contributing factor to the way animals are treated. Here human moral code is not extended to look after these animals. Because even though farming and hunting animals has extreme consequences to the environment and the animals suffering on farms, it has little direct discomfort to humans such as seeing a mans best friend in pain.
Also more effort must be put in to save the surplus animals in zoos because they are getting killed off. Animal rights organizations around the world have been shedding light on the horrors that are taking place in the zoos. A positive point that this report focuses on is the education that is provided to the public and how animals are important to the Earth. However even though education is a positive point there is a negative stance towards it. The report concludes that zoos should change their views and ways to give animals and the people a better experience and leave behind these cruel outdated methods.