Because it has been proven that animals do, just like humans, it can be argued that their suffering is enough evidence to justify their right to live without explanation, but considering that her argument is more extreme that Rifkin’s, it might be helpful if it had more support. In addition, she goes as far to insist that, “meat eating and animal abuse leads to spiritual disturbance and physical disease”. Without giving any evidence to prove its legitimacy, not only does she leave out any way to prove her assertions, her “spiritual disturbance” claim is vague and the reader confused as to what she means. Despite this, the majority of Frazier’s letter is well supported by the
It is basically survival of the fittest. Giving animal’s rights should be necessary only if they are being abused. For example, forcing dogs to fight other dogs till one is dead. If the animals are killed for our basic human needs than it should not be wrong. I agree with Bob Stevens in his letter to Rifkins when he mentions the fact that pigs would get toys even though there are human beings in the world who do not have such things.
If the vegan or vegetarian does not eat a balanced diet, it can result in the inability to develop sufficient immunity cells from certain viruses and decrease in production of nail, hair, and skin cells. This is the first sign of malnutrition. Although, animals are an important part of our ecosystem, they are a food source in many parts of the world. To question Frazier’s ideas, would not a carnivorous animal eat you if given the chance? It is society 's obligation to treat everything and everyone with dignity and compassion.
To begin, when talking about animals it can be a very sensitive subject mainly because the way animals are treated on farms, and how no one feels the need to question these actions. This is because many people feel this issue doesn’t concern them. In this essay Matthew Scully discusses the issue on how animals are treated and how they should be given more respect, and attention. Matthew Scully argues that animals in these factory farms are wrongfully treated, he uses biblical references and addresses the morals of humans to get conservatives to act on this matter.
In Farm City, Novella Carpenter claims, “ I had finally figured out who I was, who my people were: they were folks who love and respect animals, who learn from the, draw sustenance from them directly”. Although this statement does not apply when she brutally killed the possum with a shovel or painfully ended a slugs life by smashing it, when it comes down to it she respects organisms that will end up as a gourmet food on her table to consume. She believes that whatever she eats she will raise and kill respectfully by not wasting. Relating this back to the movie Temple Grandin, Temple emphasizes that, “I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we 've got to do it right. We 've got to give those animals a decent life and we 've got to give them a painless death.
Initially, the authors argue that the domestication of animals must be prohibited as it violates the basic rights of animals and raises moral questions. One right that animals must obtain is the right not to be property. When animals are a property they are mistreated and not protected. Despite the laws that governments such as the US and UK established towards animals, they only seem to be effective when a conflict arises between the owner and the animal. Furthermore, the
The Effects People Don’t See Perspective is something that many people view differently in this world, some people may never know what it's like being put through hard circumstances and different experiences. But sometimes people never get to share or tell their perspective. This is relevant to soldiers because people never see the bravery or courage it took them in war and out of war. However, Vietnam was a civil war where it came to the needs of American assistance also why it's called the “American war” Tim’ O'Brien the author of The Things They Carried is in this war physically and emotionally, the battles he and his platoon had to go through experienced many different emotions. Tim O’Brien illustrates how soldiers go through
The treatment of animals should defiantly be considered when one is raising them for meat or using them for science experiments. One objection can be made about Norcross’s argument, he compares puppies to live stock and factory raised meat to torturing puppies in someone’s basement. I feel that this argument was a good attention grabber but to compare puppies to live stock in my opinion is not a good comparison. Why? In our culture puppies and dogs are part of the family and live stock is a food source.
Rifkin uses several imprecise “past researches” in his argument, and does not discuss the more recent studies that is at odds with his position. Ironically, the scientific studies in Rifkin’s article were conducted through the same experimentations that animal rights activists are trying to abolish. The author’s arguments were supported by studies on isolated pigs, laboratory crows, an exhibited gorilla, and a closed in orangutan (Rifkin 33-34). This shows that Rifkin does not mind experiments on animals that will benefit his report. Shockingly, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills over 95 percent of the dogs and cats it takes into its Norfolk, V.A. animal shelter (Myers).
In Michael Pollan’s article, he addresses the topic as to whether or not it is morally right to consume animals. Pollan’s opinion towards consuming animals is pretty explicit in the beginning. He saw no harm in consuming animals, but his opinion started to change after reading Peter Singer’s book, “Animal Liberation”. While reading through the book, Pollan learns that eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals, and killing animals for clothing are all viewed as “speciesism”. He quotes, “speciesism”- a neologism I had encountered before only in jokes- as a form of discrimination as indefensible as racism or anti-Semitism”.
Throughout human history a plethora of religions and belief systems have emanated across the translucent barrier of time. A few religions or belief systems that share instant recognition within contemporary societies include Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Taoism. Each aforementioned religion or belief system alone holds immense and intricate details beyond complete comprehension. To simplify such a complex slew of interrelated ideals, this comparison will sight the relationship between Buddhism and Judaism.
According to Elizabeth Harman, an action that kills an animal even painlessly, is an action that harms the animal. If we indeed have strong moral reasons against causing pain to animals, Harman argues we must also have strong moral reasons against killing animals. This raises an objection to the Surprising Claim, which states that we have strong reasons against causing intense pain to animals, but only weak reasons against killing animals. The First View claims that killing an animal deprives it of a positive benefit (future life) but does not harm the animal.
One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).
I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.
Christianity and Islam share many similarities with a few fundamental differences. Both religions follow monotheism, though in Islam it is much stricter. Jesus and Gabriel are focal points for Christianity and Islam respectively. God and Allah stand for the same higher power and basis for religion. In Islam, the five pillars are the main difference just as Mary is the mother of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian religions teachings.
