Animal rights have unequivocally been a major concern amongst humans for some time now. Animal rights are based on the notion that non-human animals should be allowed to live freely: free from abuse and suffering, as humans are. The extreme issue amongst humans is whether or not non-human animals have the capacity for rationality to deserve such equal consideration. When examining the issue of animal rights, one may have come to question one’s psyche on whether or not animal rights are ethical.
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.
Animals around the world are being taken out of their natural habitats, being breaded and fed antibiotics. Cruelty among the animals range from puppy mills, zoos, factory farms, and many more. People who hurt animals may not even know they’re doing harm to them, but animals are dying all around us. According to Désirée Achollo of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), families that adopt rabbits, goldfish, and hermit crabs don’t take good enough care of the animals and the animals end up in the garbage (February 2010 n.p). Animal Cruelty is happening all around us through the mistreatment of dolphins, puppies, exotic animals, cows, and many more.
What are the moral standings of animals? Animals are all around us, domestic and feral; they play a part within everyone’s lives, a food source for some and companions for others. Some animals are used for work purposes, horses for instance have been used within the military for hundreds of years, dogs on the other hand can be used to herd sheep, and other related purposes could be the use of animals for competitions such as racing or in worse cases even fighting. So how does this fit them within society alongside us humans? A long asked question has always been the ability for animals to be rational, to have morals and if so as human beings do we have moral obligations towards them. In this essay the main aim will be to discuss these theories surrounding animals with the ultimate goal of answering the theories discussed. To start the essay will look at persons as a moral being compared with animals and how the treatment of animals and the reasons for which may raise ethical questions.
Overall reading this book has been an experience because I had never thought I would feel guilty every time I look at the piece of meat on my plate. I somehow strongly agree with Foer because at the rate we treat animals today its unbearable but in the same sense it’s also inevitable because we also need to survive both economically and physically by eating animals.
Most people would agree that animals have some kind of moral status. This presents a shift of view from past that animals had no moral status and respecting them was merely for protecting human property. Today, this question has evolved to how much moral status and what right animals have. (HOPES, 2010)
How would you like it if your skin were used to create an article of clothing? Or if you were tested on in a lab experiment just to be killed off afterwards? That’s a challenge that a majority of animals have to face every day. It seems as if cruel deaths are the fate of most animals nowadays. Richard Connell’s short story, “The Most Dangerous Game,” revolves around Sanger Rainsford, a hunter who later discovers the wrong in killing animals. “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell could be used to oppose animal cruelty.
Wells describes the corrosive effect that unchecked and rampant scientific progress can have on ethics and morality. Moreau’s disregard for inflicting pain upon the animals and for acting morally embodies what many common people from the Victorian Era feared about scientists. Moreau practiced vivisection, the dissection of still living animals, all for scientific progress: “The creatures I had seen were not men, had never been men. They were animals—humanised animals—triumphs of vivisection.” (Wells 65). By vivisecting animals for scientific discovery, Moreau demonstrates how morality can be abandoned in the wake of scientific progress. The Island of Doctor Moreau also conveys how intellectualism can be morally corrupting. Throughout the story, Moreau justifies his cruel actions by attributing them to science and curiosity: "You cannot imagine the strange colourless delight of these intellectual desires. The thing before you is no longer an animal, a fellow-creature, but a problem." (Wells 69). The Doctor once again shows how in his quest for attaining scientific knowledge he disregards morals and acts inhumanly cruel to the victims of his experimentation. To conclude, The Island of Doctor Moreau is used by H.G. Wells to criticize and expose the lack of morality in some parts of Victorian sciences such as
The process for deciding on a product was easy. I simply thought to myself, why not volunteer so that it could go on my resume and then also can count as an grade for my capstone. My capstone product is pretty simple. I volunteer at the St.Louis County Animal Care and Control, when ever I have the free time. So far I spent 12 hours there. It will be super easy for me to get 8 more hours. I don’t do much there which sucks because i’m about to get my vet assistant certification in a few months, which means I know way more about animals then probably the other volunteers do. A typical day volunteering at the animal shelter is I park my truck, sign in, and grab my name tag (now I don’t have one since I lost it and too scared to ask for another one).
We, as humans, have made numerous advancements in the world. We have firmly established the scientific evolution, but in doing so, it seems that our ethics and morals have failed to progress as well. The knowledge we have acquired is remarkable, but with it comes responsibility to use it wisely and ethically. We torture and heartlessly kill creatures that we arrogantly consider lesser beings simply at our disposal. For something as simple as eye makeup animals are tortured and blinded by tests performed at the laboratory. Where they are hardly fed, often forced to live in filth, and sometimes have their vocal cords removed to keep them quiet (CAAT). We are systematically cutting down the last forest that provides their shelter to farm cattle; we dump toxic chemicals and sewage into the waters in which they live; we wear and display the tusks of the last few of their species in our homes, and we pour cosmetic products into their eyes and body parts to determine the harmful effects they might cause on humans, even though the physiological differentiation between humans and the animals they use is drastic. On a daily basis most people do not see their own degree of unintentional support towards this global dilemma, but when compiled on paper one must question how mankind can, with conscience, commit these acts which shame us as human beings. Animals possess the same kinds of feelings and emotions as human beings, and without anesthesia, they are subjected to the pain as well.
Animals are being abused and murdered all over the world. Animal cruelty is an extremely relevant and disgraceful problem that happens everyday and we do nothing to prevent it. Everyday more and more people start losing themselves and hunt on animals to “solve” their problems. These people believe that they are the dominance in the world. They believe that they are the most important living creatures on earth, and take leadership in believing that animals are made to serve the people. This myth is unethical and cruel, animals themselves have a heart and feelings. They each have their own dilemma going on and like humans, they are one of the most important factors to exist on earth.
The ethical treatment of animals is a hotly debated concept with many views on how animals should be treated varying across the spectrum. The primary concern behind the vast majority of these debates comes from how we view the moral standing of animals. Generally these can be grouped into three distinct categories, moral equality, direct but unequal, and finally indirect theories (Willson, 2015). In this paper I will attempt to briefly explore and give consideration to all of these areas and some of the differing viewpoints within them.
Everyone holds animals in different regards, which caused the riff between me and the other members in my discussion group. All 3 of us had different views. After closely listening to their argument, it made me reevaluate my own. I did not notice how easy it was for someone to break down an argument to the point where it is no longer plausible. Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases set the foundation for how I view arguments. Alastair Norcross states concrete ideas, along with rebuttals that make the paper practically indisputable. He also includes that people may argue “the suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side-effect of a system that is a means to the gustatory pleasures of millions.” (p. 234). I believe those people are wrong, which is why I chose to discuss it for this assignment.
Nussbaum, MC 2006, ‘The moral status of animals’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 3, pp. 1-6.