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.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
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?
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Response to Sarah: Animal Interests
Is there a way of dealing with this problem, other than what I have posed here, that would not affect the animal’s interests in any way? Is there any way to justify any method as not being morally wrong?
I would have to agree that when I heard about the method of giving deer contraceptives it didn’t settle right with my moral conscience. I think anything a human could do to solve a problem like the overpopulation of deer would always interfere in some way with the animals interests. You are correct in saying that nature has a way of working itself out and it is in fact our own fault that we deal with these problems, we did build our roads in their territory. I personally think it takes away the deer’s natural rights to reproduce which seems like an awful thing to do. I think it is a very difficult issue, but I guess at least they are trying to save the lives of the deer by giving them contraceptives; it is a step in the right direction.
Do you agree that in any solution the interests of the animal will be compromised even if we are trying not to interfere with natural processes?
I would have to agree that when I heard about the method of giving deer contraceptives it didn’t settle right with my moral conscience. I think anything a human could do to solve a problem like the overpopulation of deer would always interfere in some way with the animals interests. You are correct in saying that nature has a way of working itself out and it is in fact our own fault that we deal with these problems, we did build our roads in their territory. I personally think it takes away the deer’s natural rights to reproduce which seems like an awful thing to do. I think it is a very difficult issue, but I guess at least they are trying to save the lives of the deer by giving them contraceptives; it is a step in the right direction.
Do you agree that in any solution the interests of the animal will be compromised even if we are trying not to interfere with natural processes?
Response to Laura: People That Kill Animals
I do not think it is morally right to “trophy hunt.” The hunters that hunt for the mere reward of saying they were able to shoot down one of these magnificent creatures should not have the right to hold a gun. It is a disgusting practice that should not occur at any place or time. Innocent animals should not die for the recreational purposes of humans.
Hunting should only take place when it is absolutely necessary for the survival of the human or society. In the poor areas of a country where their only income/food comes from hunting, you must give them a certain degree of understanding. Any living creature that is murdered is devastating but it is one of the facts of nature. Sometimes, under certain conditions, we must hunt animals for the survival of our own.
But again, I do not see any moral defense for trophy hunting as valid.
Is there anyone who thinks trophy hunting is morally right?
Hunting should only take place when it is absolutely necessary for the survival of the human or society. In the poor areas of a country where their only income/food comes from hunting, you must give them a certain degree of understanding. Any living creature that is murdered is devastating but it is one of the facts of nature. Sometimes, under certain conditions, we must hunt animals for the survival of our own.
But again, I do not see any moral defense for trophy hunting as valid.
Is there anyone who thinks trophy hunting is morally right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)