We all know that it is ethically wrong to throw a newborn baby into a garbage can just because you don’t want it, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I know that I could never hurt a baby but I hurt an animal every time I eat a hamburger, and just because I want it. So why do we do it, isn't it the same thing, hurting the helpless? I think if we had to go out and kill a turkey ourselves most of us would not be eating turkey on thanksgiving because we couldn’t bring ourselves to kill it. We would take one look into its sweet eyes and that would be it, no turkey this year. We all subconsciously know that we are aiding in animal abuse every time we eat meat but that is not enough to make most of us become a vegetarian. The abuse is placed at the back of our minds and we don’t think about it or we come up with excuses, such as “that is what animals are for.” But just as we were helpless as a baby animals are helpless. If we were thrown to the side and placed in the back of our mothers mind we would have been hurt, just as animals are hurt when we shove them below us in status. I think animals deserve to have rights because they are as much a part of this earth as we are and they have wants, needs, desires, thoughts, and they can love. I think my dog loves me but being human I question his ability because I place him below me even though I know I shouldn’t.
Do you think our pets can or do love us in the same way we love them? Can animals love at all?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Response to Hallie Jackson "Subjective Ethics"
Do you think that if a being has no meaning to any human being that it does not deserve ethical consideration?
I think that every living being, human or not, deserves ethical consideration on the basis that it is alive. I agree that as humans we are always going to put ourselves, our families, and our own pets above any other living creature. But, what about animals such as ants? Ants are not like our pets. We really don’t have emotional ties to them, even if we do keep an ant farm or something. So, do they matter? Do they have ant families? We really don’t know. We know that they are relatively insignificant in our everyday lives but they do contribute to the natural cycle, so do they deserve ethical consideration?
What about a human who is completely alone in the world. Someone who has no family, no friends, and no pets. Do they still deserve ethical treatment even though they don’t matter significantly to another human? I would say that most people would say they do deserve ethical treatment because they are still human. So why couldn’t we say that about the ant? This ant has no special meaning to me but it is still an ant so it deserves to be treated right. Most people wouldn’t say that which proves what you said that “some beings matter to us more than others even if we know it is ethically wrong.”
Why do some animals matter more to us than others?
I think that every living being, human or not, deserves ethical consideration on the basis that it is alive. I agree that as humans we are always going to put ourselves, our families, and our own pets above any other living creature. But, what about animals such as ants? Ants are not like our pets. We really don’t have emotional ties to them, even if we do keep an ant farm or something. So, do they matter? Do they have ant families? We really don’t know. We know that they are relatively insignificant in our everyday lives but they do contribute to the natural cycle, so do they deserve ethical consideration?
What about a human who is completely alone in the world. Someone who has no family, no friends, and no pets. Do they still deserve ethical treatment even though they don’t matter significantly to another human? I would say that most people would say they do deserve ethical treatment because they are still human. So why couldn’t we say that about the ant? This ant has no special meaning to me but it is still an ant so it deserves to be treated right. Most people wouldn’t say that which proves what you said that “some beings matter to us more than others even if we know it is ethically wrong.”
Why do some animals matter more to us than others?
Friday, September 17, 2010
Suffering vs. Mental Status
I strongly think that if a living being can suffer it should be given moral rights. But some argue that it is not whether they can suffer but the status of their mental abilities that gives them the right to have rights.
Peter Singer discusses an argument to his theory that pain felt by an animal is not as bad as pain felt by a human because humans have a greater awareness of what is happening to them and as a result their suffering is greater. He responds to this criticism by asking if it would be reasonable then to say that it would be ok to use an infant or a severely mentally disabled person for experiments because they likewise would not understand what was happening. I think it would be reasonable to compare the two because they are parallel. We would never consider using a human for such experiments so why is using animals ok? Just because an animal is not mentally aware of exactly what is being done to them it does not in any way lessen the amount of pain they feel. They still know they are being hurt. As a living thing they feel, think, want, and need certain things, just like a full functioning human being does.
Do you agree that if we would not use an infant or mentally disabled person for experiments that we should likewise not use animals because even though their mental ability is lacking they still suffer and feel the pain that is being afflicted upon them? Do you think moral rights should be based on the ability to suffer, mental ability, or both?
Peter Singer discusses an argument to his theory that pain felt by an animal is not as bad as pain felt by a human because humans have a greater awareness of what is happening to them and as a result their suffering is greater. He responds to this criticism by asking if it would be reasonable then to say that it would be ok to use an infant or a severely mentally disabled person for experiments because they likewise would not understand what was happening. I think it would be reasonable to compare the two because they are parallel. We would never consider using a human for such experiments so why is using animals ok? Just because an animal is not mentally aware of exactly what is being done to them it does not in any way lessen the amount of pain they feel. They still know they are being hurt. As a living thing they feel, think, want, and need certain things, just like a full functioning human being does.
Do you agree that if we would not use an infant or mentally disabled person for experiments that we should likewise not use animals because even though their mental ability is lacking they still suffer and feel the pain that is being afflicted upon them? Do you think moral rights should be based on the ability to suffer, mental ability, or both?
Response to Bee: “Animal Testing”
Like you, I was struck to my core when reading Singer’s examples of the cruelty to animals during experimentation. There is no excuse for such horrendous treatment to animals.
You asked, “Where does one draw the line between testing for "the good of mankind" and "just out of curiosity"? Is there a better way than using animals?”
I don’t think animals should be used for “curiosity” experiments under any circumstances. I have mixed feelings about using animals for testing. On the one hand, some experiments are beneficial to our knowledge about medicine and diseases, but I think you have to make a distinction between which tests are necessary and have a high percentage of leading to a result and the tests that will most likely be a waste of time. I am against using animals to test beauty products, they are arbitrary and we don’t need to waste a life over shampoo. However, we do have a big need for cancer research because it kills millions of people every year.
I think the line that needs to be drawn is a question of need. Animals are alive just as we are and deserve fair treatment. We don’t need to experiment just for the sake of experimenting. I think a good question to ask ourselves is whether we would sacrifice our own pets for an experiment. Would you give your bunny to and experimenter testing a new cosmetic product, probably not. But you might consider giving your dog to an experimenter who has found a medicine that if given to your dog had a high percentage of curing cancer.
Do you think there is a need to use animals for the testing of beauty products?
You asked, “Where does one draw the line between testing for "the good of mankind" and "just out of curiosity"? Is there a better way than using animals?”
I don’t think animals should be used for “curiosity” experiments under any circumstances. I have mixed feelings about using animals for testing. On the one hand, some experiments are beneficial to our knowledge about medicine and diseases, but I think you have to make a distinction between which tests are necessary and have a high percentage of leading to a result and the tests that will most likely be a waste of time. I am against using animals to test beauty products, they are arbitrary and we don’t need to waste a life over shampoo. However, we do have a big need for cancer research because it kills millions of people every year.
I think the line that needs to be drawn is a question of need. Animals are alive just as we are and deserve fair treatment. We don’t need to experiment just for the sake of experimenting. I think a good question to ask ourselves is whether we would sacrifice our own pets for an experiment. Would you give your bunny to and experimenter testing a new cosmetic product, probably not. But you might consider giving your dog to an experimenter who has found a medicine that if given to your dog had a high percentage of curing cancer.
Do you think there is a need to use animals for the testing of beauty products?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)