Cloning is a very controversial issue. According to national geographic there have been clones of cats, sheep, and wildcats. However, most of these animals don’t reach adulthood and suffer from diseases after they are cloned and some even suffer while they are being cloned. The first cloned cat by Genetic Savings and Clone is two years old and her name is CC. But she is not colored the same as her donor, they said because she is calico and calico cats will never look exactly like their donors. They however will never be the same cat as the donor because souls or personalities cannot be copied.
There are numerous ethical issues that accompany this controversial topic. The humane society believes that people clone their animals to deal with their grief of losing the animal, but they will just have to do it again when the cloned animal dies. Also, four million animals are killed each year because they are not adopted, so the humane society feels this is a good reason not to clone animals.
As I was reading, I thought about when we were discussing the personhood of animals. If we clone an animal does that copy version of the original animal have the same rights or personhood as the original? It is still an animal but it is a genetically composed and man-made creature.
Do you think a cloned animal deserves the same rights as a naturally born animal?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
In response to Bee: Pet Cloning
Would you ever try to get your pet cloned?
I would never ever get my pet cloned. I find the whole idea of cloning unnatural and disgusting. It is not our place to mess with nature in this way. Like Bee said, your pet does not come back as your pet because it isn’t your pet, your pet is dead. It is another animal that has the same genetic makeup as your old pet and that’s it. This new cloned pet does not poses the soul of your old pet and therefore it is not your old pet, souls will never be copied. I think cloning currently is and will confuse people’s minds. Our DNA does not make us who we are, our personalities, what we poses inside us that can’t be seen or touched is what make us who we are. And again as Bee said cloning animals may one day lead to the cloning of humans which would be disastrous and heartbreaking in my opinion.
Why do we feel the need to experiment with such things as cloning, is it our curiosity or our mere selfish desires to obtain something that drives this kind of tampering with nature?
I would never ever get my pet cloned. I find the whole idea of cloning unnatural and disgusting. It is not our place to mess with nature in this way. Like Bee said, your pet does not come back as your pet because it isn’t your pet, your pet is dead. It is another animal that has the same genetic makeup as your old pet and that’s it. This new cloned pet does not poses the soul of your old pet and therefore it is not your old pet, souls will never be copied. I think cloning currently is and will confuse people’s minds. Our DNA does not make us who we are, our personalities, what we poses inside us that can’t be seen or touched is what make us who we are. And again as Bee said cloning animals may one day lead to the cloning of humans which would be disastrous and heartbreaking in my opinion.
Why do we feel the need to experiment with such things as cloning, is it our curiosity or our mere selfish desires to obtain something that drives this kind of tampering with nature?
In Response to Bryan
Why is utilitarianism such a common view to have in today’s world?
I think utilitarianism is so common because it is in our human nature. We tend to think that if the outcome will make things better then what we do to get there, no matter how immoral, makes it ok. If we need to tell that lie to keep a friendship or kill a hundred rats to find a cure we do it because we desire the results that the action will produce. Most will do just about anything to get something they desperately want. We convince ourselves that our actions will be justified by the results we obtain. As we know, this is not always true. It takes a larger person, therefore maybe more morally stable, to tell the truth to your friend then to selfishly lie to them just to avoid the conflict. Just as killing a hundred living creatures might not always be the best option. We are utilitarian because of our selfish natures.
Is there any reason to believe that “the ends justify the means” is a good statement to use to justify using animals for experimentation to find a cure for a disease?
I think utilitarianism is so common because it is in our human nature. We tend to think that if the outcome will make things better then what we do to get there, no matter how immoral, makes it ok. If we need to tell that lie to keep a friendship or kill a hundred rats to find a cure we do it because we desire the results that the action will produce. Most will do just about anything to get something they desperately want. We convince ourselves that our actions will be justified by the results we obtain. As we know, this is not always true. It takes a larger person, therefore maybe more morally stable, to tell the truth to your friend then to selfishly lie to them just to avoid the conflict. Just as killing a hundred living creatures might not always be the best option. We are utilitarian because of our selfish natures.
Is there any reason to believe that “the ends justify the means” is a good statement to use to justify using animals for experimentation to find a cure for a disease?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Buy, Sell, Kill: Our Property
Our culture is very law based. People lean on our laws in a variety of circumstances. Your friend won’t pay you back, take them to court. We threaten the use of our lawyers and our courts to settle personal and professional issues. Many of these cases are animal related. People are taken to court by others who got bit by their dog and for many other animal discrepancies. This makes these pets seem like our property, things we can buy, sell, and get court orders to kill when they misbehave. But I don’t see pets, or animals in general, as our property. We are the owners of these pets because they need our protection and our care. Ownership of pets means you are the decision maker for that living creature who otherwise could not defend itself against other humans, so others can’t take your pet away from you. It does not mean they are our property.
Do you think most people in our culture view their pets as their property? I know that I see my pets as more my family then my property and my protection and care for them stems from that reason and not because they are mine.
Do you think most people in our culture view their pets as their property? I know that I see my pets as more my family then my property and my protection and care for them stems from that reason and not because they are mine.
Response to Jacob: Legal Subjects
Which is the better route to take? Do we call animals people, or do we fashion them a new category?
This is a perfect question because it is exactly what I wrote my Q and A on. I don’t think we can consider animals as persons or as property. We need a new category. Animals are not people, humans are people. We are on a different intellectual level than animals and as humans we would, in most cases, choose the human life over the animal life. They are not things either, they are living creatures. Animals however do deserve rights and they deserve justice. Animals deserve a category in law that is made for them. They need laws that protect their rights and should not be thrown in the same category as either persons or things.
One of my questions for my Q and A is: Should there be a set of laws to distinguish which animals, possibly based on intellectual levels and human-like qualities, are given the most “person like” rights? Who would be qualified to make these laws? I think apes are more intellectually capable then say a dog and a dog more than an ant. So should we have different laws protecting animals, in their own animal laws category, based on those qualities of the species?
This is a perfect question because it is exactly what I wrote my Q and A on. I don’t think we can consider animals as persons or as property. We need a new category. Animals are not people, humans are people. We are on a different intellectual level than animals and as humans we would, in most cases, choose the human life over the animal life. They are not things either, they are living creatures. Animals however do deserve rights and they deserve justice. Animals deserve a category in law that is made for them. They need laws that protect their rights and should not be thrown in the same category as either persons or things.
One of my questions for my Q and A is: Should there be a set of laws to distinguish which animals, possibly based on intellectual levels and human-like qualities, are given the most “person like” rights? Who would be qualified to make these laws? I think apes are more intellectually capable then say a dog and a dog more than an ant. So should we have different laws protecting animals, in their own animal laws category, based on those qualities of the species?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Response to Hallie: Leashes
I'm wondering how we would fix the problem of putting pets on leashes against their will. What problems do you think would arise from banning leashes for pets as well as children?
I think it is not always the owner that decides to put the pet on the leash it is our society. It’s the law that says all dogs must be on a leash when outside, if they are not confined by a fence of course. I would love to walk my dog without a leash but if my dog were to bite another dog or human I would get in huge trouble with the law. If a cop were to spot me I could be fined for not having my dog on a leash. We do not have a large yard so we do not have it fenced in, our dog has to stay chained when outside. I do not think any animal or person should be chained against their will but sometimes it is what has to be. Take inmates for example, if they were not in hand cuffs others would be in a lot of danger. So, maybe if some dogs were not leashed when outside they too would put us in a lot of danger given that some dogs are very aggressive and temperamental, I think for that reason, we have the leash law.
As far as child leashes go, I think it is mostly to keep the child safe, as Hallie said, but it could be looked at another way. I have not personally known anyone that keeps their child on a leash but the child might actually enjoy having the leash. In a way it gives them more freedom. On the leash the child can walk semi-away from the parent, whereas, if not on the leash they would have to hold the parent’s hand, be in a cart, or be held by the parent. The leash gives them the freedom to walk with a sense of independence while keeping the child safe and nearby. So I guess it depends on how you look at leashes and every situation is different.
Why do we look at child leashes negatively? It is better than seeing a parent who lets their child run way ahead of them while talking to another adult, to me that is abuse. Children need boundaries to keep them safe, at all ages. What do you think?
I think it is not always the owner that decides to put the pet on the leash it is our society. It’s the law that says all dogs must be on a leash when outside, if they are not confined by a fence of course. I would love to walk my dog without a leash but if my dog were to bite another dog or human I would get in huge trouble with the law. If a cop were to spot me I could be fined for not having my dog on a leash. We do not have a large yard so we do not have it fenced in, our dog has to stay chained when outside. I do not think any animal or person should be chained against their will but sometimes it is what has to be. Take inmates for example, if they were not in hand cuffs others would be in a lot of danger. So, maybe if some dogs were not leashed when outside they too would put us in a lot of danger given that some dogs are very aggressive and temperamental, I think for that reason, we have the leash law.
As far as child leashes go, I think it is mostly to keep the child safe, as Hallie said, but it could be looked at another way. I have not personally known anyone that keeps their child on a leash but the child might actually enjoy having the leash. In a way it gives them more freedom. On the leash the child can walk semi-away from the parent, whereas, if not on the leash they would have to hold the parent’s hand, be in a cart, or be held by the parent. The leash gives them the freedom to walk with a sense of independence while keeping the child safe and nearby. So I guess it depends on how you look at leashes and every situation is different.
Why do we look at child leashes negatively? It is better than seeing a parent who lets their child run way ahead of them while talking to another adult, to me that is abuse. Children need boundaries to keep them safe, at all ages. What do you think?
Sacredness
Mathews describes her childhood relationship with her animals as a kind of bridge connecting her with nature. She says on page 559:
“…animals that were available to me throughout my childhood had opened me to a larger world, a world astir with presence or presences that vastly exceeded the human. It was this direct contact with unknowable but pervasive presence which instilled in me a sense of the sacredness or enchantment of the world, and the potentiality for the ‘magic’ within it.”
She blames our disconnection with the natural world on industrialization and urbanization. Her connection with her pony/animals was a communication in which she was able to release her deepest feelings and thoughts to. She describes a mutual relationship in which she and the horse communicated in a deeper form that went beyond language and connected her to a long forgotten time when people viewed animals and nature as sacred. My first thought was the connection the Native Americans had with animals and nature. They often worshiped gods from nature and they respected the animals they killed. They seemed to have a deeper understanding of the nature of animals and the natural world that we have lost as a society somewhere along the way.
Have we lost our sense of sacredness toward the natural world and its animals?
Do you think someone can have a relationship with an animal that would be just as deep as one between two humans? What about someone whose only family is the animals they keep as pets?
“…animals that were available to me throughout my childhood had opened me to a larger world, a world astir with presence or presences that vastly exceeded the human. It was this direct contact with unknowable but pervasive presence which instilled in me a sense of the sacredness or enchantment of the world, and the potentiality for the ‘magic’ within it.”
She blames our disconnection with the natural world on industrialization and urbanization. Her connection with her pony/animals was a communication in which she was able to release her deepest feelings and thoughts to. She describes a mutual relationship in which she and the horse communicated in a deeper form that went beyond language and connected her to a long forgotten time when people viewed animals and nature as sacred. My first thought was the connection the Native Americans had with animals and nature. They often worshiped gods from nature and they respected the animals they killed. They seemed to have a deeper understanding of the nature of animals and the natural world that we have lost as a society somewhere along the way.
Have we lost our sense of sacredness toward the natural world and its animals?
Do you think someone can have a relationship with an animal that would be just as deep as one between two humans? What about someone whose only family is the animals they keep as pets?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)