Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. First, I begin with Swinburne’s views on the kinds of evils. According to him, there are two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to all evil caused deliberately by humans doing what they ought not to do and also the evil constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure
In the article, Timothy Hsiao begins with an outline of one school of thought of vegetarians that it is morally wrong to eat meat because of the pain caused in the killing of animals and that eating meat is unessential to survival. Hsiao then establishes his argument that even though eating meat may not be necessary, our “nutritional interests” are a valid enough reason to kill animals. The following section argues that sentience is only a relevant consideration in association with sufficient moral standing and that because animals are not part of the human “moral community,” they have no moral standing and therefore, their pain is a “non-moral” welfare interest, trumped by the “moral” welfare interests of humans (Hsiao).
Euthanasia, meaning ‘gentle, easy death’, is known as the act of ending somebody’s life painlessly in order to relieve suffering. This is a common topic for debate, with many arguments about whether it is morally wrong to end somebody’s life in the circumstances of extreme illness. People such as Joseph Fletcher, founder of Situation Ethics, may suggest that euthanasia may be the most loving thing in certain situations, and is therefore morally right. However, other people, such as Aquinas, founder of Natural Moral Law, would disagree, stating that it goes against the precept of preserving life, and is therefore morally wrong, no matter the situation. Although there are some situations in which euthanasia could be exploited, my thesis will argue that it is not always morally wrong to end someone’s life in the circumstances in which euthanasia would be contemplated.
Down With Animal Testing There are certain things about animal testing that the community doesn’t know. Some people know what happens to those animals and they don’t want to face what happens. The inhumane treatment of animals used for research is well documented. There are many pros and cons considering the use of the animals in medical research. Animals shouldn’t be used for testing because it’s inhumane and it will make the population go down.
Animal testing should be banned because it is an unethical process that subjects animals to so much pain. In addition, it should be banned because, it is inaccurate, unreliable, and its benefits to human beings have not yet been fully confirmed by the current research. Animal testing should be banned because it is an unethical process. According to statistics, about 128 million animals which include guinea pigs, cats, rats, hamsters, dogs, frogs, hamsters, dogs,
It is not right to euthanize dogs because it is unfair due to equal rights, it is cruel to kill animals, and there are possibly better ways to treat dogs who bite people. Killing dogs for biting is considered an unfair punishment, and they should have the same rights as humans.
This is a lie the scientists have to treat the animals humanely so that the test are reliable . The research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate test. Also the scientists can not treat animals in a inhuman or cruel manner or will be fined or arrested for animal abuse. The scientists have to treat all the test subject humanely because if not and someone gets hurt or dies the scientists will be responsible for the accident. Testing upon animals saves humans from having To volunteer to be tested on and possibly die from the drugs.
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.
Which basically describe how Lewis’ believe that the cruelty of animal is a significant moral evil, evil that is done until human willingness. This was again something Lewis’ was hugely passionate about. We can see his passion so clearly in his work with The Chronicles of Narnia. Lewis’ great love for animals is a huge reason why so many would believe that the animals have such a significant role in the books. For example the main character through out the entire series is a lion.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory summed up by the phrase, the right action is one which creates the sum total amount of happiness for the greatest number. Therefore, utilitarians believe that morality’s purpose is to maximise the number of good things, such as happiness, and decrease the number of bad things, such as unhappiness, in the world. Critics of utilitarianism believe that this theory cannot accommodate moral rights since we go against our intuitions in moral dilemmas. However, utiltarians have a response to these criticisms which shows that utilitarianism is defensible. Utilitarianism was developed into an ethical theory by two philosophers named Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.