Analysis of The Logic of Collective Action Public Goods and The Theory of Groups by Mancur Olson

It should be a fare assumption, that most social scientists have an intuitive notion of what constitutes ‘power’. Nonetheless, academia has been unable to formulate a single defining statement for the concept of power, rigorous enough to be used interchangeably when studying various political or social phenomenon. Worse yet, the more attempts are made to define power, the more complex the concept becomes. Although the conceptual definition of power is difficult to pinpoint, its pervasive applicability, and on-going importance to political theorists is certainly not lost, as countless academics define and apply the concept of power in order to add depth to their work. Of these theorists, Robert Dahl, and Robert Michels are two.

Being socially responsible is apart of life and the way you look at it. It’s being a good person and trying to the right thing for yourself and for the people around you in the hopes of more will follow.

Animals Right and Religion Analysis In his essay “Religion and Animal Rights," the writer Tom Regan maintains the place that animals are "subjects-of-a-life”, like humans. If we value all beings regardless of the degree of human rationality that are able to act, we must also attribute to animals or as it is called non-human animals as well. All practices involving abuse of animals should be abolished. The animals have an intrinsic value as humans, and stresses that Christian theology has brought unbridled land on the brink of an ecological catastrophe. Regan begins the essay by stating that " Not a few of people regard the animal rights position as extreme, calling, as it does, for the abolition of certain well-entrenched social practices rather than for their “humane” reform " ( Regan 619 ) .

As the reader, I took this as Kant saying that animals do not think like humans when it comes to repentance and compensation, and humans need to respect animals for their way of thinking and not take advantage of them for their lack of understanding. He then provides a quote from Aristotle, the exact contrast of his first quote that describes nonhumans as nothing but an existence for the good of the man in regard to his needed services and food. He then emphasizes the wild ones to take priorit... ... middle of paper ... ...le in freedom to the human rights system. If only all humans could recognize that we are truly treating animals today like we did in the years of civil rights for African Americans. Forcing animals to live in horrible conditions until they are slaughtered for cheap meat, in my opinion is truly comparable.

Critical theorists such as Karl Marx and Jürgen Habermas are critics of unequal social conditions specifically groups that are excluded from power or from free access to information. Thus, critical theorists do more than observe, interpret or describe; they criticize. Looking through the power structure research lens, this theory helped the researcher by asking who benefits from the unequal distribution of power and who are they taking advantage of by focusing on the community issue. In communication, critical scholars have focused on the role of communication in society and on the control of communication... ... middle of paper ... ...cal dimension” of his work (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982, p. 114). He claims that power and knowledge are not external to each other, but that they operate in a mutually generative fashion, as “nothing can exist as an element of knowledge if [...] it does not possess the effects of coercion” and as “nothing can function as a mechanism of power if it is not deployed according to procedures, instruments, means, and objectives which can be validated in more or less coherent systems of knowledge” (Foucault, 1997, p. 52).

The anti-vivisectionists say we should allow no experiments on animals and the animal utilitarians, or vivisectionists, claim that we can do anything to animals if it is for the ultimate good of humanity. Perhaps they are both wrong. Much can be learned from treating animals that are already sick or injured in testing new life-saving drugs and surgical techniques. Animals, as well as people benefit from new discoveries. But is it right to take perfectly healthy animals and harm them to find cures for human illnesses, many of which we bring on ourselves by poisoning the environment, eating the wrong kinds of foods, and by not adopting a healthy active life-style?

A veil of ignorant point of view would completely neglect that harm humans are doing to the poor animals by experimenting on them as this perspective would only focus on the advantages of animal testing. The golden mean perspective would feel that animal testing is not right in all circumstances but sometimes experimenting on animals can be right as it can be beneficial for humans although harmful for animals at the same time too. References Berlin, Ann. “Animal Testing: Why it is Morally Offensive.” Animal Liberation Front.com. 13 Nov. 2006.

Reasons are simply because there isn’t any humans who would offer themselves to test for new drugs. Supporters of animal testing claim that animal testing should be conducted on in a more humane way and the laws says that you have to test a drug on an animals before humans and there is no question about it because that is the law. With the advancements in technology in this era, animals are able experience lesser pain and suffering (American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, n.d.). This is done by practicing the 4 concepts which is replacement, reduction and refinement and the rehabilitation. Replacement also known as comparative substitution is done by replacing living animals with animal cells or tissue culture in an experiment whenever there is a possibility in achieving the same aims.

Humans need to stop thinking about themselves as a superior species to other animals. They have to start thinking about how we can stop the cruelty that they inflict upon animals day after day in experiment after experiment. Tom Regan, a well-known animal rights activist, wrote, "the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us- to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money" (Regan 14). Nothing could be more true than this fact; man considers itself such a superior species that all others were put on earth for his convenience. It is this type of thinking that has gotten humans to the place where we are today.

Another problem is when you get near the top of the steps you hit a point where you should look at things threw an egalitarian point of view. Which can bring you back to where you started from because you are supposed to respect everything which intern you end up respecting nothing. In conclusion do to the arguments I have shown, we can conclude the existence of animal ethics depends on the existence of environmental ethics. I have shown this by demonstrating the individualistic ways in which Singer, Regan and Taylor look at this world will only save the rights of animals , and the world can not survive with just animals. I have also shown that by demonstrating the holistic views of Leapold, Westra, and Naess will preserve the rights of the environmental as a whole.