Analysis Of Sharing Pain By Haraway

1441 Words3 Pages

Shared Suffering: Is it enough?
In this essay I will be focusing on chapter 3: Sharing suffering, instrumental relations between laboratory animals and their people. In this chapter, Haraway argues that animal welfare and care should be intrinsic within the experiments or scientific tests that involve animals. While writing to biologist colleagues she states “I want to argue that such care is not of experiments that might also involve killing and/or pain, but is intrinsic to the complex felt responsibility (and mundane non-anthropomorphic kinship) many researchers have for their animals” (Haraway 2007, 90). Haraway furthers her argument with the belief that sharing the suffering of a test animal is essential in the process of forming an equal …show more content…

Although the chapter is occasionally hard to follow, Haraway successfully demonstrates an empathetic response to animals suffering due the actions of humans subjecting them to research. She uses arguments to support her views that animals should be regarded as co-workers rather than objects that simply react and are dispensable. She looks at the different perspectives of the act of killing between animals and humans, and states “The problem is actually to understand that human beings do not get a pass on the necessity of killing significant others, who are them-selves responding, not just reacting” (Haraway 2007, 80). This view is unique in comparison to what society commonly believes, so reading this chapter was both enlightening and interesting. Despite the interesting ideas and arguments that Haraway communicates, the chapter often has run on sentences and unnecessarily lengthy words, such as ‘multiplicitous’ (Haraway 2007, 80). This often made the chapter hard to read and therefor difficult to digest. This can, however, be seen as a fault of my own. My final thoughts on chapter 3 of ‘When Species Meet’ is that the extensive research that Haraway underwent proved effective when supporting her argument and, in turn, created a thought compelling and respectable piece of

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of A Question Of Ethics By Jane Goodall

    677 Words  | 2 Pages

    Goodall argues that her readers have an ethical obligation to protect animals from suffering, but she also implies that it might be necessary sometimes to abandon that obligation. She points out that animals share similar traits with human beings: they have a capacity for certain human emotions, and they may be capable of legitimate friendship. Goodall’s evidence for this claim is an anecdote from her research. She recounts that one chimpanzee in her study, named David Greybeard, “gently squeezed [her] hand” when she offered him food (62). Appealing to readers’ emotions, Goodall hopes to persuade readers that the chimp is “sociable” and “sentient,” or feeling (62). According to Goodall’s logic, if researchers are careful to avoid tests that cause human suffering, they should also be careful to avoid tests that cause suffering for other life forms.

    Read More

  • Let's Put an End to Animal Research, Testing, and Experimentation

    2009 Words  | 5 Pages

    Zak, Steven. “Ethics and Animals.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2007

    Read More

  • Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals Analysis

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    He discusses "animals subjected every year to agonizing research center experiments"(Rifkin) and "raised under the most heartless conditions." He additionally cites that animals are "for butcher and human utilization." These words, words like subjected, coldhearted, and butcher have staggeringly negative meanings and infer thoughts of ruthlessness and viciousness. On the off chance that we take after Rifkin 's reasoning, and animals resemble individuals, and we butcher (for eating no less) and place needles in their eyes in a lab- - that is essentially unsatisfactory. This is the thing that Rifkin need us to get it. For Rifkin, this is the present circumstance however it doesn 't need to be. On the off chance that people comprehend that animals are particularly similar to us, we will need them to be treated with the same admiration and poise. Right now, we are not doing this. However, we can.

    Read More

  • The Modern Hunter Gatherer Pollan Analysis

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    from our animality is a large question, but surely the human fear of death figures in the answer” (6). From this quote, Pollan conveys the idea that we as humans believe we are superior to animals in all aspects of our lives and deaths. Humans are not only the top of the food chain in most cases, but when it comes time to experience death, we jump to an unprovable conclusion that we experience death in a different and unique way. However, as humans we must justify the superiority of human death, otherwise the death of an animal by human hands would make that individual hunter a murderer. Pollan references the quote anticipating that most of his audience feels the same way, but he also references it because it is unlikely that a majority of his readers have actually given a deeper consideration to this thought. By highlighting this uncertainty it leaves his audience no choice, for a moment, to face this reality that mankind has formed. In his article Pollan guides his readers down the path of uncertainty by allowing his readers a glimpse into his personal convictions. For example, the comparison he forms between “stumbling upon some strangers pornography” (6) and the “trophy portrait”(6) of him posing in front of the slaughtered boar shows the disgust he felt after having time to reflect. The

    Read More

  • Michael Hanlon's Vivisection Is Right?

    884 Words  | 2 Pages

    Imagine a puppy spending his entire life in a locked cage where he is deprived of food and water, and force-fed chemicals from time to time. This is the life of animals in a laboratory. Live-animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is not only unethical, but also cruel and unnecessary. In the article “Vivisection is Right, but it is Nasty- and We must be Brave Enough to Admit This”, Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is a moral necessity that without the use of animals in the laboratory, humans would not have modern medicine like antibiotics, analgesic, and cancer drugs (1). For example, Hanlon believes sewing kittens’ eyelids together can aid researchers to study the effects of amblyopia in children (1). Conversely, the use of animals

    Read More

  • The Ethics of Animal Use in Biomedical Research

    1849 Words  | 4 Pages

    Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.

    Read More

  • The Pros of Animal Testing

    1427 Words  | 3 Pages

    Animal testing is a subject appalled by many people. It is considered to be unethical, inhumane, and downright cruel. One of these reasons for the opposition of animal experimentation is due to the belief shared by many animal activist groups, such as PETA, that animals are kept in appalling living conditions in research facilities. Reasons to believe this are caused by minor instances of laboratories not abiding the law. However, despite these instances the welfare of test animals are preserved by many laws and regulatio...

    Read More

  • Animal Experimentation

    940 Words  | 2 Pages

    For centuries scientists have used animals to study the causes of diseases; to test drugs, vaccines and surgical techniques; and to evaluate the safety of chemicals used in pesticides, cosmetics and other products. However, many scientists amongst animal- right activists forbid the use of animals in scientific research regardless how many illnesses are eliminated through the use of animals in scientific research. Amongst animal right activists, David Suzuki also raises concerns towards animal experimentation. In his article, The Pain of Animals, Suzuki argues that humans have no right to exploit animals because--much like humans--animals also experience pain. In contrast to Suzuki, Haldane, in his article, Some Enemies of Science, argues because animals are very similar to humans, scientists have no choice but to use animals in scientific experiments. Both authors greatly contrast their opinions towards animal experimentation; however Haldane has a more explanatory approach towards animal experimentation. He argues animal experimentation should be acceptable because other forms of animal exploitation are acceptable in society. Secondly, unlike other forms of exploitation which seek pleasure in killing animals such as leisure sport, scientists, most likely do not harm animals; if pain is intended on an animal it is strictly for the purpose of scientific advancement. Thirdly, although, animal experimentation may cause some extinction, it is only one of many other causes of extinction, if other causes are not condemned; then neither should animal experiment...

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Animal Testing

    1080 Words  | 3 Pages

    Every year, millions of animals are injured or killed in scientific experiments across the world. Those in favor of animal experimentation say they’re taking animals’ lives to save humans. But is it really necessary to subject animals to torturous conditions or painful experiments in the name of science? Is it ethical to destroy an animal’s life while simply testing lipstick or shampoo? Animal experimentation, like many of the issues we face today, is difficult to argue against, and just as hard to support, but it is necessary to continue this experimentation in order to advance human knowledge and to help save human lives.

    Read More

  • Animal Testing: Unnecessary Pain for Dubious Gain

    1607 Words  | 4 Pages

    “The question is not, can they reason, nor, can they talk. But can they suffer?” (Bentham). Each year over a hundred million animals endure a number of experiments in an attempt to make human lives easier. These experiments range from cosmetic testing to medical research, sadly neither of these tests are needed. Many people will accept animal research because they believe that these animals aren’t suffering (“Harm and Suffering”) or they believe that animal testing in beneficial to humans. In reality, these animals suffer for mankind, when the need does not exist. Animal testing creates unnecessary pain and suffering for animals, when in reality most experiments will not benefit human health.

    Read More

  • Lilly-Marlene Russow Why Do Species Matter Analysis

    788 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the article of "Why do species matters?" by Lilly-Marlene Russow, the author establish the desire of species,, why individuals tend to treat living being (creature) distinctively in light of the fact that they are an alternate animal groups; and furthermore treat certain creatures of an animal groups with more thought. She additionally emphasize on the issue which is figuring out what commitments a man may have toward one creature over another.Russow argues that one commitment toward animals for some is to secure declining or endangered species, yet this does not really stretch out to the whole types of that animal. As indicated

    Read More

  • Argument for Stopping Animal Abuse

    2126 Words  | 5 Pages

    The ugly truth is that animals are dying at the hands of their owners everyday, some in very violent ways that can be avoidable given the right solution. Slaughterhouses, puppy mills, dog fighting, and so on, are just a few examples of how animals are being treated badly by people. Animal cruelty is a form of violence which, un...

    Read More

  • Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical?

    2169 Words  | 5 Pages

    Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection. Throughout centuries, medical research has been conducted on animals.

    Read More

  • Should Animals be Used for Scientific Research?

    1711 Words  | 4 Pages

    Every year, millions of animals experience painful, suffering and death due to results of scientific research as the effects of drugs, medical procedures, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. Basically, animal experimentation has played a dominant role in leading with new findings and human advantages. Animal research has had a main function in many scientific and medical advances in the past decade and is helping in the understanding of several diseases. While most people believe than animal testing is necessary, others are worried about the excessive suffering of this innocent’s creatures. The balance between the rights of animals and their use in medical research is a delicate issue with huge societal assumptions. Nowadays people are trying to understand and take in consideration these social implications based in animals rights. Even though, many people tend to disregard animals that have suffered permanent damage during experimentation time. Many people try to misunderstand the nature of life that animals just have, and are unable to consider the actual laboratory procedures and techniques that these creatures tend to be submitted. Animal experimentation must be excluded because it is an inhumane way of treat animals, it is unethical, and exist safer ways to test products without painful test.

    Read More

  • Animal Testing Should be Banned

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science:Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP: Oxford UP, 1993.

    Read More

More about Analysis Of Sharing Pain By Haraway

Open Document