Pets: Man’s Best Ethical Dilemma Appearing in just about every cartoon, television show, or feature length film, families are portrayed as having one father, one mother, a son and daughter, and of course, a furry little four-legged friend with a lighthearted name. These creatures often play important roles in the dynamics of the family, ranging from the comedic relief to the source of comfort. Whatever size, shape, or species they are, modern society has awarded household pets the title of being a designated family member. Recently, however, animal ethicists have begun to contemplate the relationship humans have with their pets and the sort of problems that arise when considering the rights of animals. Is it right to own animals such as …show more content…
The natural urges that animals are inclined towards are hampered by the confinement of their chosen lifestyle. This didn’t happen overnight, however, seeing as the domestication of certain animals has been an ongoing practice for thousands of years. Dogs learned to expect their food in a bowl two to three times a day instead of having to hunt for their prey. Cats adapted to being declawed (a selfish move on the owner’s part), never having to learn how to fight off a predator or climb to higher places. Over time, humans created new breeds of species through the taming of these once wild animals. Clearly violating the equal consideration of interests that Singer mentions, it leaves the issue of pet keeping to contemplate what measures should be taken to ensure ethical treatment of these animals. Should pet keeping be abolished completely? Should pets be allowed to eat whatever they want, deny the veterinarian from giving them vaccinations if it hurts them, or even walking in the park without a leash, following the scent they want to? Or should the practice of pet keeping be banned altogether and let the animals fend for themselves in the wilderness where they once originated
Pets, Inc. may argue parody under 15 U.S.C §1125(c)(3)(A)(ii), to assert that they have not impaired the distinctiveness of Chapels mark, parody is not a complete defense under Trademark Dilution due to Pets, Inc.’s use of the mark as its designation of source i.e. as its trademark.
Have you ever had the pleasure of sitting beside an animal on the Skytrain on your commute to work or stood in line beside one at the grocery store? Did you know that there's a difference between service dogs and emotional-support animals? These are one of the many struggles that individuals are faced when in public. The article "Pets Allowed" written by Patricia Marx gives you an inside look on the struggles people are faced with while also explaining the rules and laws regulating emotional-support animals that many aren't aware of. Many business owners are being taken advantage of by pet
certain groups of people who are trying to bring light to matters in which they see
... using their companionship to always have that best friend that will never let us down. Animal rights have gone far enough. There are laws to protect these animals. There doesn't need to be laws that perish our natural instincts and pastimes.
a. A member of PETA, Tom Reagan, says that animal pain and suffering is part of
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
The 'Secondary' of the 'Secon Singer P. Animal Liberation, Inc. A New Ethics for the Treatment of Animals. Avon Books. New York, NY: New York, 1975. Spencer, Colin.
...ans should be able to possess animals or not. One side of the scale believes that anybody can have animals. The other side of the scale believes that nobody has the right to have any animals. The middle ground or the middle of the scale believes that only some people should have the right to own animals. Each side has very good reasons for their arguments and points of view. Although some of these reasons are considered ridiculous by some certain people. The people who care about this should be almost everyone, because almost everyone has experienced visiting a zoo, animal abuse or even buying a pet. This issue is a huge deal to humans because there are so many animals and we have to figure out what to do with them and who is or who is not allowed to take care of them; Especially since humans have been diffusing all over the world, taking over animal’s environments.
There are many animal owners that believe abusing it is the only way to control and train it (Nine Reasons for Animal Abuse). This not only includes animals that are pets, it includes the ones that are in the performing business (Nine Reasons for Animal Abuse). Trainers that do not properly know how to get the animal to act as they want may result in using physical harm to initiate fear, and this will “teach” the animal to do as it is told, so it does not have to risk being abused all over again. As another reason as to why a person may not think of animal cruelty as something serious is due to what the philosopher Raymond G. Frey of Bowling Green State University had to say on the issue. His argument is based around his belief that because animals are not human, they do not have moral rights (The Animal Rights Debate). He also goes on to say that their lives do not have the same moral values as the lives of humans due to another belief that he possesses, which is thinking an animal does not undergo the same emotional and intellectual experiences as a human would (The Animal Rights Debate). While there are some that do not believe that animal cruelty is a serious issue because they have placed their trust in what Raymond G. Fray has said, there are others that simply think animals are a lower form of life (Missimer). These people conclude that
"In "All Animals Are Equal," Singer argues for the equality of all animals, on the basis of an argument by analogy with various civil rights movements, on the part of human beings. How does this argument go exactly, and what is Singer's precise conclusion? Is his argument successful? Why or why not? If you think it is successful, raise a residual potentially damaging objection, and respond on Singer's behalf (i.e., as a proponent of the position). And if not, how far does the argument go and/or how might it be improved? What has Singer taught us here, if anything?"
Equality has been long discussed and it has been an issue not only between species but also within the human race. Although the situation has change within humans, for animals is a whole different story. Animals are treated in several cruel ways ranging from abandoned pets to farming and testing on them. In this essay I intend to argue that Singer’s statement that the principle of equal consideration does not require equal treatment while demanding moral equality between us and the animals still incites equal treatment to achieve moral equality. Even though this equal treatment only takes place when like relevant interest are considered, the fact that it takes place at all signifies that animals are worth for them selves to some degree. Otherwise they would not have interests at all and we would not have to consider them and how they are affected by our actions. Hence, is it not an ethical position to say that we can achieve the demanded moral equality through equal consideration without equal treatment for animals.
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A
Animals can be a man's best friend; however, they can also be ones worst enemy after passing certain boundaries. Peter Singer who wrote Animal Liberation gave valid points in my opinion because animals do have a right to live and we should give them their space. Humans take everything for granted and never seem to learn until it too late. Today slaughterhouses are abusing animals in disturbing ways which has to change. I will agree with Singers concepts on animals because they have a right to live a peaceful life like humans; they have a life ahead of them once they are born. Singer argues that animals should have their interests considered throughout their lives. Singer wants to eliminate speciesism from our thoughts which is, a human discriminatory belief that all other animals are not as good as them therefore they do not have rights and we could do what we want to them. We should not be the only types of "animals" in this earth who has a set of rights we should abide.
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
Many people in the world today suffer with problems such as anxiety and depression. As a way to treat these problems, those people should use animal-assisted therapy. Animal-assisted therapy (also known as pet therapy) is used in many hospitals and is growing more every day.