Once upon a time in the great island kingdom of Anatole, a beautiful princess named Lisle enjoyed her leisurely life spent mostly in the natural surroundings of her family's castle. Set in a valley adorned with a friendly river and bountiful fruit trees, the Kettering Castle was by far the grandest in the world. The massive structure gleamed like gold in the sunlight and spread out over several acres of land. Moreover, because Anatole was located on a large but remote island in the center of what is now called the Atlantic Ocean, the kingdom bore a home for many exotic creatures, most of which the rest of the world had never before seen, even in pictures.
Princess Lisle loved the creatures of Anatole and kept many as pets. In fact, between her and her two brothers and one sister, the Anatole royal family had a true menagerie that included birds, reptiles, fish, and mammals. They even had many gigantic insects that were as visually stunning as flowers and not creepy in the least. The Anatole royal family took great pride in their menagerie and fed and housed the creatures very well, almost as if they were people. As a result, all the animals in the menagerie appeared happy and healthy and lived long lives.
One day the King from a land far, far away came ashore to Anatole to bid the royal family hello. It was the first time that King Hercule had set foot on the great island and he was promptly offered the royal treatment tour. Princess Lisle accompanied her brothers, Prince Yonick and Prince Darren, and her sister Princess Felina along with their parents, the King and the Queen. Together, the royal family of Anatole and King Hercule spent the entire day roaming about the grounds of the palace as well as the remote hinterlands of the island, visiting spots that even the Princess herself had never before gone.
One of these special, remote spots was Mount Lindenberg. Princess Lisle had always heard of Mount Lindenberg but because it was so steep and far away from the…… [Read More]
How would the ethical issues surrounding Harlow's experiment be changed if it were conducted on lesser species, such as rats
If Harlow conducted his experiments on lesser species that results would have varied dramatically. Although Harlow proved that animals can learn and think at a complex level, the cognitive attributes of those animals must be taken into account. In addition, rats particularly the popular experimental white rat, have differing habits as it relates to child rearing. Rats do not typically nurture their young as to monkeys. In addition, rats do not have the cognitive capacity as many more mature monkeys have.
In regards to ethics, popular opinion would therefore be swayed towards the diffence of monkeys rather than rats. Rats, in many instances are considered dispensible, and inconvieniences of life. Monkeys, as it relates to public perception are often considered close relatives to the human specices. It is likely therefore, that the public would hold the standard of care for monkeys higher than those of lesser species such as rates.
I also believe, the overall longevity and reproductivity capacity influences the ethical issues surrounding Harlow's experiment. Rats tend to live shorter lives, and reproduce a more rapid rate than monkeys. As such, many individuals place less value on the lives of rat than they would that of a monkey. Due to these reasons I believe, that the ethical issues surround rates would have changed significantly relative to monkeys
If Harlow, conducted his experiment in accordance with the law, I believe the public would not find ethical fault with his experiments.
2. Which aspects of Harlow's studies would be violating research guidelines if conducted today?
If conducted today I believe Harlow's studies would violate provisions that stipulate that amount of animal suffering induced by an experiment. Current law states that animals should not suffer in the event more animals are used than are necessary; or because less sentient animals could be substituted for more sentient ones. This…… [Read More]
Animal Cruelty and Human Violence
Animal cruelty includes an assortment of different behaviors harmful to animals, from neglect to more serious malicious action, and even various forms of brutal killing. Studies indicate that animal cruelty may also be followed by more serious forms of crime, such as drug use, inappropriate violent outbursts, and even in some cases homicide. Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology have addressed the issues involving animal cruelty and human violence and have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated incidents of animal cruelty (Henderson, Hensley and Tallichet). Violence directed at animals by young people is a sign that something is erroneous in their behavioral patterns, and often acts as a predictor of future violence, even homicides against other humans.
One way to prevent such occurrences is through regulation and enforcement. Since the early 1960s, Congress has enacted over eighty animal protection statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).1 States have also passed a wide variety of prohibitions and regulations on animal cruelty, animal fighting, Internet hunting, and puppy mills (Ritter). Although such policy initiatives are useful and just, it is not always the case that local enforcement actively pursues such perpetrators or enforces the regulations at all.
Another method of addressing the situation is through education including ethics and humane education. Humane education teaches people how to accept and fulfill their responsibility to companion animals, such as cats and dogs, and all forms of animal life. It explains the consequences of irresponsible behavior and encourages people to see the value of all living things (The National Humane Education Society). This not only helps people to understand the implications of violent effects on animals but also, in many cases, provides individuals positive examples of how to treat animals. Is often the case that people, especially children, often witness the more inappropriate ways to treat animals and learn through social situations…… [Read More]
The purpose of this paper is to present a persuasive argument against the practice of animal cruelty:
Animal cruelty activists state that when an individual is a witness to animal cruelty that the offense should be reported to the agency in the area in which they live. There are laws against cruelty to animals and the laws differ from state to state inside the United States. Many organizations have been formed for assisting the government in stopping the practice of animal cruelty by both individuals as well as that committed by businesses and larger corporate organizations.
Animal Cruelty Reported by News:
Recently reported is the fact that animals used by companies such as "Menu Foods" regularly treat animals with cruelty in regards to the research done by the companies in testing of dog and cat food before marketing it. According to one report an investigator from PETA
was witness for many dogs with "their legs caught in bars of slated steel cage floors."
Further the report stated that the investigator for PETA found that the cats were not receiving the proper care and that several had died from lack of treatment. According to the report the investigation was ongoing for a period of nine months and during that time not once did the investigator see anyone from Menu Foods check or observe the conditions of the animals.
Statistics and Other Information:
In a report entitled "Linking Animal Cruelty to Human Violence" performed by the FBI and Scotland Yard it was found that violence inflicted on animals is one of the key five indicators of whether a person has the capacity to commit violence against other human beings. The report stated that all of the states in the United States "have felony offenses for animal cruelty" in which a person may receive a prison sentence of up to ten years.
Further reported in the article was that in a U.S. Poll asking…… [Read More]
Once upon a time, there was a young girl named Sarah who lived in a small house with her parents. Close to her hut was a deep thick forest that was home to many animals including Sheeba, the deer, Reno, the hippopotamus, Tania the sheep and Bounty, the Lion. Sarah knew all of them since they were her only friends in the neighborhood. Everyone else was much older than herself. Sarah would wake up early each day to feed her friends some breadcrumbs, biscuits and water. Sheeba and Tania would spend the whole day with her. Life was merrier on this side of the forest. Everyone lived happily and people were kind and compassionate. They always treated animals benevolently and not even a single soul in the animal world had ever been hurt by humans. Their rights were respected wholeheartedly in fact animals took them for granted since they had never been robbed of what they considered their privileges by birth. Freedom, right to live and right to adequate food and water were things that no animals ever gave much thought to since they were granted these rights on a silver platter. Life for them was beautiful.
But on the other side of the forest, things were not so perfect. There was a large corporation, Total animals Inc. that was headed by a cruel man named Simon. Simon thought he was good to animals since he owned many himself but the treatment he meted out to them was awful. Very few people knew this but Simon had been in the business of exporting deer and sheep fur to wealthier countries. This business had turned him into an overnight success. By all means, Simon was a millionaire who apparently loved animals since he would always be on the lookout for innocent stranded animals. Just a few months back, Simon hit the jackpot when government decided to privatize the City Zoological Garden. This zoo was the oldest and most famous garden of its kind in this part of the world and people would come from around the country to see the collection of rare animals including the white elephants and Indian…… [Read More]
.. it's healthy, it's somebody's way of life, it's somebody's livelihood, it's somebody's business.(ibid)
This is a strongly worded statement and indictment of an uncaring humanity. However, bearing in mind the daily evidence of cruelty to animals one cannot but feel that there is an element of truth to this argument.
Commercial reasons for abuse
One of the central reasons or "justifications" for animal abuse and possibly why so many turn a blind eye to animal cruelty, is commerce and the profit motive.
The plain fact is that this country and other industrial countries are deeply dependent on animal exploitation to sustain their present economic structures. The plain fact is that we are more dependent on animal exploitation than were the states of the southern United States on human slavery. (Francione, G.)
Animals are essentially seen as property. While there are many laws designed to protect these animals these laws are also prejudiced towards the interests of the owners before the welfare of the animals. An example of the way animals are often treated only as commercial commodities is the following.
In Australia, lambs are put through a gruesome procedure called mulesing, in which huge chunks of skin are sliced from the animals' backsides, with no painkillers given to the animals. Then, when their wool production declines, sheep are shipped to the Middle East on open-deck ships. These journeys, which can last months, are to countries where animal welfare standards are non-existent. So the suffering sheep are dragged off the ships, loaded into trucks, sometimes upside-down, and then have their throats slit while they are fully conscious. (United Cruelty of Benetton)
Agriculture, which is humanities oldest way of survival, previously meant a certain reciprocity and sense of care and dependence between the farmer and his animals. However, agriculture has now devolved into…… [Read More]
Animal Welfare Assurance Organizations
Animal welfare: Assurance organizations
Organization 1: Manes and Tails Mission (Hoboken, NJ)
Manes and Tails Mission, located in Hoboken, NJ is a locally-based organization that oversees a variety of efforts to reduce cruelty against horses. Given the faltering economy, many horses have been abandoned and/or abused, as fewer and fewer people have the ability to care for their animals properly. Horses from the racetrack or who have been used in vocations like the Mounted Police often have difficulties finding good homes after they retire. This organization resolves to "rescue, rehabilitate, retrain, and re-home the most commonly slaughtered breeds of horses - Quarter horses, Thoroughbreds, and Standardbreds." (Mission statement, 2011, Manes and Tails.). It does not sell horses, although it does lease them. It also provides retirement homes for Mounted Police horses. It educates the public about equine slaughter. It also provides community service through reduced rate boarding, maintenance of rare breeds, and promotes holistic horse care education.
The program is fairly balanced in terms of how it promotes preserving horses physically and mentally, and also attempts to keep horses in as natural a state as possible, regardless of where they are housed (including promoting keeping horses shoeless whenever possible). Providing educational and supportive resources to the community rather than outcomes are emphasized -- the organization is small and its goals are varied, so it does not keep metrics on monitoring how much of a positive or negative effect it has had upon the equine community. The organization disseminates information to all horse owners about improving the care of their animals and tries to help horses on a case-by-case basis. It acknowledges in its mission statement that it is a local organization with limited resources and strives to create liaisons with other community organizations and national organizations devoted to horse rescue and care.
Organization 2: The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
In contrast to the small, localized horse rescue Manes and Tails, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) is a national organization. Like Manes and Tails, the ASPCA is devoted to preventing animal cruelty and to…… [Read More]
A study by the Chicago Police Department found that persons who had been arrested for animal cruelty often had a history of other crimes as well (Chicago Police Department 2008). These offenses included homicides, narcotics charges, battery, firearms charges, sex crimes, and gang related activities (Chicago Police Department 2008).
A similar study found that animal cruelty was more common among incarcerated individuals with aggressive tendencies, then for non-aggressive individuals (Keller and Felthous 1985). The study found nine distinct motivations for animal cruelty. It also found a higher incidence of family violence, particularly paternal abuse, and alcoholism (Keller and Felthous 1985). Merz-Perex, Heide, and Silverman, (2001) also found a relationship between childhood animal cruelty and later violence towards other human beings.
The graduation hypothesis contends that children who are cruel to animals progress, or "graduate," to more serious crimes towards humans (Wright and Hensley, 2003). This theory contends that animal cruelty is a link that set eventual serial killers apart from the rest of society (Wright and Hensley, 2003). That is not to say the all that are cruel to animals will become serial killers. It is just to say the serial killers have a tendency towards animal cruelty as a child or adolescent.
Battered Pets: Battered Family
The above referenced literature demonstrates a strong connection between animal cruelty as children and those that are incarcerated as adults. However, one must be careful in the assumption that one automatically leads to the other. Individual circumstances differ, as do motivations. Just because someone abuses an animal does not automatically mean that they will eventually batter someone as an adult. However, the connections between the number of battered women and children who seek assistance through shelter and whose partners had threatened or attacked the family pet are astounding. This special area of literature requires attention.
Nearly 75% of domestic violence victims indicated that their partners had threatened or killed family pets at some time before the incidents of violence towards them or their children began (Faver and Strand 2003; Loring and Bolden-Hines 2004). Women often will not leave an abusive situation for fear of what the batterer will do to their animals (Ascione, Weber, and Thompson et al., 2007). Children living in violent homes are more likely to abuse animals (Currie, 2006). Another study found that batterers who harm animals commit more dangerous acts than those that did not abuse animals (Simmons and…… [Read More]
4). Singer references the essay in the book by Richard Ryder, who criticizes (with great justification) animal experiments ("now a large industry"). Of course there have been laws passed in the U.S. Congress subsequent to when this book was published, laws that provide guidelines for any animal research, but Ryder provides Singer with some gruesome experiments on animals and Singer reports them in his essay.
How moral is a company or organization or university when it injects chemicals into the brains of cats? At the National Institute for Medical Research in London they did just that, and while it is doubtful they could get away with such cruelty in 2011, they certainly did then. The injection into the brain of a cat with a large does of "Tubocuraine" caused the cat to jump into its cage and start calling "noisily whilst moving about restlessly and jerkily… jerking in rapid clonic movements" like an epileptic convulsion, and dying 35 minutes after the injection (Singer, p. 5).
Springer noted that notwithstanding the fact that these kinds of hideously cruel experiments are taking place "on university campuses throughout the country" there has not been "the slightest protest from the student movement" (p. 5). He is wondering in this essay why students protest against discrimination when it has to do with race or sex, or the military and big corporations, but when it comes to animals, the students tend to see them as "statistics rather than sentient beings with interests that warrant consideration" (p. 5).
Conclusion -- What are Americans' Values and Morals vis-a-vis Animals?
When Springer alludes to the essay by Ruth Harrison ("On Factory Farming") he hits home with the most egregious practice in the West when it comes to food production. When veal calves are kept in narrow stalls, to narrow for the poor calf to turn around, that is immoral, and it paints an immoral portrait of the society, whether it is the UK or the U.S. One of the questions to be answered in this paper has to do with skewed morals, and there…… [Read More]
Animal Abuse and Violent Criminal Behavior
In the peer reviewed article and literary review of Patterson-Kane and Piper's article from 2010 they did an article after researching and investigating whether there are alleged disagreements involving animals that are physically mistreated and people who are aggressive and carry out unlawful actions. Within the review of Patterson-Kane and Piper, they did a research using independent and dependent variables, and the independent ones are the ones that are used in an experimentation which is being maneuvered in the research in categorizing to the outcome on the dependent variable which is the response variable which is also looked after in the study that the independent ones causes the dependent one to change to help of the experiment. The survey was conducted to determine if there was perhaps violent intentions in criminals first begins with cruelty to animals and possibly also lead to them also harming their significant other and their own children, and was there also a possibility that this violence toward sadistic scandalous people was carried down to their own children.
The summary does have concepts because it contains information that has sound punctuality that goes further than the understandable motivations for the abstract because there is a lot of statements included that certain authors either stated or quoted about this particular topic. The questionnaires that were given also reflected on further analysis that may associate aggressive behavior toward abuse because the professionals that were included in the article also talked about the different opinions of different experts and there hypothesis on what kind of or what is the reasons for linking animal cruelty to people with violent behavior. These concepts are explained very clearly, for example, the author explains that public organizations like the American Humane Society encouraged others that there was definitely a connection between brutal criminals and the mistreatment of animals that also corresponds to communal influence yet to the degree of rationalizing the elimination of broods in situations where the mistreatment of animals is obvious. Finally, three notions are discussed when the review mentions that these perceptions need to be considered when looking…… [Read More]
Animal Advocacy Organizations
There are many local, national, and international organizations that advocate for the rights and welfare of animals, domestic and wild. Two of those organisations are PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). In this paper, the two will be compared and contrasted.
PETA & ASPCA
The ASPCA was the very first humane society to exist in North America, according to their website. Henry Bergh founded the ASPCA in 1866, who believed that animals have the right to be respected by humans, and to be treated kindly, and to be protected under the law. In fact the ASPCA was the first humane organization that has been granted "legal authority to investigate and make arrests for crimes against animals… [although the ASPCA] fulfills its mission through nonviolent approaches" (ASPCA).
PETA was founded in 1980, and their mission statement explains, "…animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration" (PETA). PETA is far more aggressive in its philosophy than the ASPCA, and PETA takes the position that animals "…are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." PETA firmly believes that all beings (human and animal) "…deserve to be free from harm" and deserve to have their best interests taken into account "regardless of whether they are useful to humans" or not (PETA).
The ASPCA was actually incorporated by the New York State Legislature in 1866, and today has three key areas of interest and action: a) "caring for pet parents and pets"; b) "providing positive outcomes for at-risk animals"; and c) serving victims of animal cruelty" (ASPCA).
PETA, as mentioned, is far more aggressive in its approach to public relations and to direct action that protects animals. For example,…… [Read More]
By using animals in research, and through animal research science learns how certain chemicals "interact with living systems"; this knowledge can be "translated into protection of humans, animals, and the environment from toxic levels of natural -- as well as man-made -- exposures (SOT, 6).
Legal and professional accountability
In Canada there are Research Ethics Boards (REBs) that have the power to authorize or reject funding for experiments with animals; when animal research proposals do not meet with proper ethical requirements, the REBs can put a halt to the experiments (Tremayne-Lloyd, et al., 2007, p. 56-57). The law in Canada -- which should be imitated in other countries that do not now have laws protecting animals -- allows that an overseeing regulatory agencies like the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO) can "reprimand members and/or suspend or revoke licenses to practice" (Tremayne-Lloyd, 57). Cruelty to animals, assault on animals, or "criminal negligence" can lead to legal ramifications for the organizations conducting research using animals. An "assault" is committed when there has been no legal authorization by an REB and "force is intentionally applied" to an animal (Tremayne-Lloyd, 59). Moreover, section 446 of the Criminal Code in Canada makes it a criminal act to willfully cause "…any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal including that which results from a failure to exercise reasonable care" (Tremayne, Lloyd, 59).
In conclusion, there clearly have been many benefits for humans because animals are used in laboratory tests, but on the other hand there are instances that have been verified where animals are brutally mistreated for purposes that are not at all obvious. Regulating the use of animals, like it is done in Canada, is the best idea, short of finding alternatives to the use of animals in important research.
Works… [Read More]
Animal Rights and Experimentation
Animal rights are being constantly violated in this day and age. They are being subjected to endless experimentation in order to ensure a healthy life for humans. This is known as vivisection. The local industries use tests, which kill around 50% of the animals during the tests. It is sad to know that tests are still being conducted on animals in spite of having results. Experts have found out that animal testing is unnecessary.
According to PETA, the FDA is to blame for animal rights violation in the U.S. They have made animal testing mandatory for testing of all pharmaceutical drugs. There are no laws to prevent animal experimentation. There are a lot of loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act, as it does not protect the rights of mice, birds and rats. The research facilities have been given a carte blanche to carry out their merciless testing. They have been allowed to make their own choices.
Animal rights activists argue that animals should not be left at the mercy of these research facilities as they feel that the only purpose for animals is that they serve as biological play toys for scientists. There are a number of alternative ways to conduct experimentation without using animals.
Animal Testing: Not beneficial for humans
Scientists believe that medication tested on animals can guarantee safe use for a human being. However that claim can be refuted very easily. Animals are different from human beings. It is useless to conduct tests on animals as they have a different biological system. They have a different anatomy, genetic system, physiology etc. It has never been scientifically proven that a drug tested on an animal is safe for people.
According to Dr. Arie Brecher, "Animals are completely different from humans, and no animal species can serve as an experimental model for man. Each animal has a genetic code of its own, which is a fixed datum, and characteristically unique in each species. For this reason, a method that is based on the similarity between the species, while there are differences, and different genetic codes, can only lead medical science into error." [Brecher, 1989]
This can be proved by an example. A lot of animals were experimented upon to test the drug Softenon. It was cleared for human use after it was found…… [Read More]
However, it is also characteristic for them to be in total agreement with the procedure when it involves their well-being or the welfare of someone close to them. Ed Owen's (2005) testimony regarding his daughter and how she manages to stay alive due to the large amount of medicine that she takes is certainly breathtaking. Even more amazing is the fact that most of the medicine that she uses had been created with the help of animal testing (Owen).
The fact that that many animals suffer as a result of animal testing is indisputable. Nevertheless, their suffering is not in vain, as even more people (and even animals) benefit from the exploit. As long as people do not come up with a serious alternative to animal testing, humankind is forced by its very condition to perform tests on animals.
Works… [Read More]
Cruelty and Kindness in Halfbreed
Halfbreed by Maria Campbell is an autobiography where Campbell describes the struggles of her life. Campbell's struggles center around her being a halfbreed, a half-Indian and half-white person, rejected by both the Indian and the white people. Cruelty and kindness are important themes of Campbell's story. Firstly, there is the human cruelty of discrimination, represented by the acts of the people. Secondly, there is the cruelty of society, where society oppresses people. Finally, it is a belief in human kindness that allows Campbell to overcome the struggles, with the writing of the autobiography an act of reaching out to the people who have discriminated against her and offering them the opportunity to understand the cruelty of their ways and choose to change these ways.
The first cruelty is that of the people, the people who discriminate against Campbell and treat her as an outcast. It is seen how both the Indians and the whites reject her and her people, leaving Campbell feeling like she does not belong anywhere. The outcome of this treatment is that the halfbreeds live in extreme poverty. Examples of this discrimination are presented throughout the book to show how discrimination was a part of life for the halfbreed and something they could never escape from. This begins in her childhood where she is treated as a social outcast at school. It continues to where her family are driven out of the church. Campbell also describes how people assumed the halfbreeds would steal, always watching them when they entered stores. Their living conditions are also cruel, where they are forced to live in shacks along the road. This is human cruelty against the halfbreeds by a society that does not accept them as valuable. They are essentially treated not as people, but as animals, not worthy of a life like everyone else.…… [Read More]
Indictment of the Moral Offense of Animal Cruelty
Animals think. Animals feel emotion. Animals experience pain. Yet there are members of our human society that find these facts irrelevant. In fact there are many people that have no problem disregarding these facts entirely as long as they are able to reap some type of personal reward or benefit from an animal. Whether that benefit is in the form of food, clothing, or testing the latest new lipstick, it is always at the expense of the animal's well-being. In this paper I argue that the abuse of animals is morally wrong and therefore animals ought to be afforded rights which place the same consideration on their sentience as is placed on human beings.
Sentience is a term used to describe the fact that animals feel pain and emotions in much the same fashion as human beings. It is also used as a philosophical argument in favor of animal rights and the concern for how animals are treated in our society. Animal rights positions vary from the desire to give animals all of the same rights as humans, to the avoidance of the unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering upon animals. It is the latter stance that I advocate for because I do believe that animals are necessary for human survival in many instances. However it is one thing for a native tribe to feed their families with the meat of a wild animal, and it is quite another to hurt or kill an animal so that you can wear a pretty fur coat or hang its head on the wall as a trophy. As such, a major part of the moral argument regarding animals rights is based on need and purpose.
Animal rights activist Priscilla Cohn explains her reasoning on the issue of need and purpose as follows: "Recreational hunting is killing for fun, and I am opposed to killing in all forms, unless it is clearly a rationally established matter of self-defense. Most people, I believe, desire to be treated justly…Most people understand what justice is, and most agree that inflicting pain and suffering on another living, sentient…… [Read More]
Arguments For: In response to those allegations, Bill Mattos, the president of the California Poultry Federation, said that he had invited California Senate representatives to visit poultry farms -- and to see for themselves that allegations of inhumane treatment are not true -- but his offer was declined (Fitzenberger). "To me, it's propaganda disguised as research," Mattos said in response to the report the California state Senate Office of Research produced.
Essayist Bart Gruzalski (Ethics and Animals, p. 253) writes that "the use of animals for food can be justified on utilitarian grounds even if we take into account only the pleasures and pains of the animals involved." Gruzalski quotes pig farmer James Cargile, who buys "several pigs" every year "from a neighboring hog farm"; Cargile raises them "to slaughter for food" but sees no meanness because the pigs "are given lots of room and food, everything a pig could want for a good life but a short one" (Gruzalski, p. 253). Cargile states that his pigs "…are getting the best deal people are willing to give them" because their "good, short lives are better than no life at all" (Gruzalski, p. 253).
Arguments Against: Writing in The Well-being of farm animals: challenges and solutions, David Fraser and Daniel M. Weary assert that a pig in hot weather "will normally wallow in mud" to cool down (p. 41). But if an "overheated pig is confined in a pen where wallowing is impossible," Fraser et al. continues (p. 41), "its quality of life is arguable affected according to three criteria: the natural behavior is prevented; the animal is likely to undergo a heat-stress reaction" (involving reduced growth and reproduction); and three, the pig "is likely to feel uncomfortably hot."
D. Explain The Position Taken on These Issues
While I do not pass ethical or moral judgment on those who regularly eat red meat, pork or chicken, I do pass judgment on the unethical strategies used in "factory farming" of poultry, pigs and cattle. I find myself eating less of those three animal meats lately. Indeed, the facts brought out in this paper regarding the hideously inhumane conditions that…… [Read More]
Wicca Animal Use
Shelley Rabinovitch has asserted that modern Wiccans see themselves as part of a world that includes all living beings in Nature (69), which generally prevents exploitative 'use.' This is not universal, but animal abuse would probably exclude a practitioner from the group "Wiccans." This has not been the case throughout history, and some modern Neo-Pagans include use of animals in ritual they claim falls within the harmonious balance of a non-dualistic participation in Nature (below). The result is a change in modern Wiccan relationship to animals compared to historical relationships as far as the available evidence shows. This requires defining the group "Wiccans," and also 'use' and 'animals,' because some groups typically classified alongside Wicca under the class "Neo-Pagans" are beginning to differentiate themselves through ritual animal use in ways Wiccans may perhaps want to dissociate themselves from.
"The language of self-identification to outsiders differs from that used when discussing religion with insiders," Rabinovitch explains (88). While there are many sub-groups within the modern group "witches," articulated by specific areas of "cosmology and axiology" (77) which Rabinovitch classifies into "Religionist," "Ecopagan," "God/dess Celebrants" or "Eclectic" based on worldviews respectively personal, global, societal and 'overlapping,' some research shows "[i]nformants falling into all classifications indicated they would tell another Neo-Pagan they were a witch (whether initiated or not), but they would use one of the more neutral terms in discussion with the general public" (Rabinovitch 88). In this sense, Wicca along Rabinovitch's taxonomy includes "a subset of Neo-Paganism, followers of a Goddess and a God in what they view as a pre- or non-Christian religion from the British Isles. For the purposes of this chapter, a Neo-Pagan witch is a self-identified believer in a Goddess/God-based religion" (76). Given her reminder "[e]ven the witches themselves do not necessarily agree on what defines…… [Read More]
Killing Animals for Food Is Not Necessarily Wrong
Over time, vegetarians have presented a wide range of reasons as to why eating meat and/or any other product derived from animals is wrong. In seeking to support their position, most vegetarians cite the need to uphold animal rights. In the recent past, the number of people turning to vegetarian diet has been increasing steadily. However, regardless of this, it is important to note that a careful review of literature clearly demonstrates that the consumption of meat and/or other products derived from animals is not necessarily a bad thing.
In Zacharia's (2012) opinion, "the market for vegan food is booming." This effectively means that the number of those joining the vegetarian bandwagon is steadily increasing. However, a vast majority of the population still believes that there is nothing wrong with eating meat or any animal produce. It could be right.
To begin with, killing animals for food can be viewed as a way of controlling their numbers. This is more so the case for domesticated animals. With that in mind, avoiding animal meat would lead to an unprecedented increase in the population of animals. Killing such animals for food can hence be viewed as a 'necessary evil' aimed at averting a possible catastrophe.
Secondly, humans are inherently omnivorous largely because they are capable of consuming both flesh and plants. Indeed, this argument can be taken further by pointing out that just like carnivores; human beings possess a canine tooth that is relatively sharp. In carnivores, this tooth is specially designed or adapted to tear flesh apart. If human beings were not meant to eat meat, then they would not be equipped with a canine tooth just like other meat eaters.
Although there are many reasons as to why killing animals for food is not necessarily a bad thing, there is a need to identify some dissenting arguments. It can be noted that most vegetarians are convinced that killing…… [Read More]
No animal understands what experimentation is. Therefore, how does one decide whether it is ethical to conduct experiments on them, experiments that involve blatant cruelty and assault?
It must be remembered that those people who voice their objections to using animals in experimentation fall under two broad categories: animal welfare activists, and animal rights activists. While those who belong to animal welfare groups do agree that animal experimentation must carry on, but that they must be minimized, so that the pain and suffering of the poor creatures is also minimized, those that belong to the animal rights group are more radical with their opinions. These people have often stated that animals too have their rights, in much the same way as human beings do, and that animals must therefore never be used for the purposes of experimentation, as this is extremely cruel, unkind, brutal and unethical. (Bridgstock, 69)
Going back in time, it is true that animals have been used for experiments since time immemorial, although it was comparatively rare before the nineteenth century. One of the earliest records of animals used for experiments was found to be from ancient Rome, when the renowned court physician, 129 to 210 CE Erasistratus supposedly used a pig to show the severance of the different nerves to his audience by cutting them on the hapless pig. In the late middle ages, anatomy was being interestingly investigated, with the help of animals, who were dissected to find out the working of the body. Some of the famous physicians of the time were William Harvey and Andreas Vesalius, who used various kinds of animals in their experiments on anatomy. Harvey was also known to have used deer in his experiments to find out about blood circulation, while Rene Descartes is known to have stated that animals are much like machines, because they do not experience pain at all! Amazingly, this was the view that persisted until the twentieth century: that an animal do not experience pain. It was Francois Magendie and Claude Bernard who made the foundation, during the nineteenth century, for the modern…… [Read More]