Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Negative impact animal agriculture has on the environment research papers
Negative impact animal agriculture has on the environment research papers
Negative impact animal agriculture has on the environment research papers
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this week’s post, I will discuss why I believe Regan’s argument is better when comparing it to Kant’s argument for the moral status and ethical obligations to animals. I cannot fully agree with Kant nor Regan’s belief. I find the two perspectives displayed extreme and I find myself somewhere in the middle of both perspectives. I do not believe that we should invade the homes of other species and attempt to aid and /or destruct in some way. I do believe we should aid for no other reason than to correct the damage caused by anthropogenic activity. Although our good intentions may seem to be helpful, we should keep in mind that there are natural processes that are in place that substantially supports a lifestyle similar to the one we live …show more content…
in. The intention may be in fact good but end up negatively impacting an ecosystem and the natural system that is in place. For instance, while we may think we are helping an environment, we may be harming it and throwing its natural system off balance. Just like our own system, the systems in place with other species work just as properly as ours.
Other primate species have similar characteristics that include emotions dealing with death, pain, and the consumption of food by way of hunting. Regan supports the fundamental idea underlying his argument that animals are not our resources but rather are experiencing subjects of a life, the same as humans. These life experiences aid in the forming of moral beliefs. I do think Regan’s belief is extreme in the reference to completely eliminate commercial animal agriculture. In my opinion, animal agriculture should be minimized to operate locally versus nationally or globally. Local operation can ensure that there is not an overabundance and misuse of animals. Total elimination is not rational to me because the consumption of meat is in the diet of not only humans but other animal species as well. If we cut hunting out of our diet, should animals cut out hunting their specific choice of preys as well? Although we share similar value in hunting, though the way we hunt is different. In addition, there should be requirements and restrictions on human treatment and living space for …show more content…
animals. In comparison to Kant, I do not agree that we have absolute no moral obligation to animals but I do believe that morally we should allow them to have their space to live in their natural habitat without our moral perception of how things ought to be. In addition, I do believe that animals are rational, they do have moral worth and thus we direct ethical duties towards animals. In addition, the argument I provide is that it is immoral to impose morality on another species that has their own way of life that is self-sufficient without the influence of mankind.
Also, the elimination of hunting and science is extreme, perhaps modifications in production and planning of distributing animal agriculture and the reasoning for science experiments may be necessary. For example, the stock of dolphins and whales. When referring to whales and dolphins by the term “stocks” it implies that they are a resource which can be exploited and taken over by populations (The Economist, 2012). Stocks are defined as “the supply of goods available for sale in a store, a supply of something that is available for use, and a share of the value of a company which can be bought, sold, or traded as an investment” (Merriam-Webster, 2015). Animals should not be subject to such behavior that we would not want to have in our environment. In addition, I believe that animals, such as primates, that have a sense of culture that includes their own moral concept of situation, we should not disturb their ecosystem based on our moral perceptions. Elizabeth Landau reports that although chimp males compete with each other regularly, they also come together to repair their relationships (Landau, 2013). The pattern displayed is also present in the workplace and amongst human
families. In conclusion, I briefly discussed why I believe Regan’s argument is better when comparing it to Kant’s argument for the moral status and ethical obligations to animals.
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
In John Leo’s “The Beauty of Argument”, Leo discusses how discussion and debate has changed drastically over time.
I agree with Strawson in saying that we are not truly morally responsible for what we do, in a mental respect at least. Though it suffers from many faults, there are also ways to even more clarify his argument, as I will hope to do so in the following. First off, Strawson states that for someone to be truly morally responsible, we have to understand the points that he has given. The first being that we do what we do because of the way we are. These just states that the things we do and decide are based upon how we are in that moment, in mental respects. For example, when it comes to choosing what to eat between options A or B, I will choose option A because of how I am. But if you were to choose, it would be dependent on the way that you are
On December 2,2015 I went to to the Lynnhaven building to receive some feedback on my agreement paper for English 111. It was a very rainy day after running through the rain when I reached the writing center room. There was a yellow note saying that the writing center was in the student center until December 4,2015. After reading the note I ran back in the rain to my car.It was to cold to walk it was raining. As I approached the student center I was told by a security guard that the tutoring lab was located on the third floor. I had walked up three flights of stairs. When I had finally reached the third floor,I walk into the tutoring lab. There were about eight tables, but only four staff members and one student. Amen had approached me asking what did I need help with today. I replied saying that I would like some feedback on my paper for English. He then pointed to the writing table and said “she can assist you with your paper”.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
This forces the definition of rational beings to be extremely significant. For instance, some animals could be easily disputed as rational, and a case could also be made for the mentally handicapped. Since Kant’s guidelines for rationality are reason, will, and autonomy, it is quite clear that many lives will not suffice, regardless of how ambiguous the requirements are for a given species. This exclusion creates some worrying interpretations of how, or whether Kantian ethics defends any outliers from exploitation. If Kant had intended for their protection, he would have mentioned such. Therefore, it must be concluded that Kantian ethics fails to protect animal rights or impaired
“Is it right, in the deepest moral sense, for one conscious being to eat another?” Throughout Eating Apes, Dale Peterson takes the readers through what he experienced, saw, and the issues presented with trying to protect the apes to gear us to answer that question. He was able to do this with the stories of Karl Ammann, who took the photographs presented in the book, and Joseph Melloh, a gorilla hunter from Cameroon. Prior to taking this class, my knowledge of apes going extinct went as far as being aware that we needed to save them from extinction. However, I was unaware of neither how brutal apes were treated nor how pivotal they were to people in Central Africa’s diet – until I began reading Eating Apes. Eating Apes is a descriptive but difficult book to read through that describes why the ape population was diminishing and the various stakeholders involved.
In the Vancouver Aquarium, there are many aquatic animals that have been encaged for research purposes and entertainment. Some people may say animals have a right to life, and human have no right to interfere in their natural lives because they are living creatures just like us. However, Kant (239) suggests that “animals are not included in the moral community because they lack rational autonomy”. Based on this principle, in Kant’s view, disagrees having animal right that people do not have an obligation to treat animals as same as other human beings.
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
In this Essay I will be analyzing and discussing John Corvino's argument on whether his homosexual friends Tommy and Jim should have gay sex. Corvino begins his paper by describing normal things about the two men, essentially making them sound like regular normal happy people, in a happy and healthy relationship. Corvino goes on to "assume" that they have sex. This is where Corvino's argument begins: "Why shouldn't Tommy and Jim have sex?" Corvino's full argument is as follows:
1) Feldman, Fred. ‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198.
Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:
The. Print. The. O’Neill, Onora. “Kantian Ethics.” A Companion to Ethics.
As the article says, Regan’s theory requires us to divide all living things into two categories. Firstly, those that have inherent value have the same basic rights that humans have and secondly those do not have inherent value have no moral right. Personally, I disagree quite strongly with this notion, I feel that all animals, including humans have a combination of inherent value and instrumental value and that this combination is largely dependent on where the animals lies on the food chain. I say food chain because I strongly disagree with using animals for other reasons such as for fur and carpets as I feel it is immoral to gain utility from animals for decorative purposes. For example, a human would have close to 100% inherent value and
With regards to the responsibility to animals a deontologist would ask themselves, do animals really feel emotion, have experiences, and is treating animals cruelly really okay? According to Tom Regan, as a moral human-being it is our duty to protect and respect animals as if they were our friends or family.