Response to "What is Animal Ethics?"

Response #3

In Laura's blog, she states that animal ethics encompasses the moral value and moral status of animals as well as the rights of all animals in general. Everyone has different views about whether animals have rights, how many rights, and if some animals are superior to others when it comes to these rights. Animals need to be protected, especially domesticated animals that are under the care of human beings. Morally, it is wrong to exploit animals and mistreat them but some people do not share these morals. There are always stories in the news about dog fights, abuse, abandonment, neglect and so on. Laura asks, "Why do you think people violate animal rights?"

According to ASPCA, most people who abuse animals don't do it on purpose. They hurt animals because they don't think about or realize what they are doing. For example, some people don't realize what kinds of shelter different animals need. They may keep a dog in their yard with a doghouse that is on the ground and gets flooded with water when it rains, or they keep their dog on a short chain all of the time. On the other hand, people may abuse an animal, on purpose, maybe once or twice just to see how it will react. A group of kids may decide to throw rocks at a birds nest to see what will happen. Curiosity doesn't justify cruelty, but this is a reason why animals get hurt. Then there are people who intentionally hurt animals because they enjoy it or it makes them feel in power. These people would most likely hurt other human beings too, just to feel in control. They target animals more often since they are more helpless than people. Animals are only capable of expressing themselves indirectly in case of abuse.

In my opinion, people violate animal rights because they can. It breaks the law but, in many cases, nothing is done about it because no one is aware of the abuse. The abusers want to feel powerful; they want to dominate and bully something and animals are the easiest target. They know it is wrong and hurtful but they get pleasure out of it. Some people believe human beings are the dominate species and they can simply control 'lesser' species however they want since nothing will come of it. Animals are vulnerable, defenseless and completely in man's power. People who ignore the well being of animals should be brought to court and be held accountable for violating animal rights, plain and simple.

My question to you is: Do you think humans fail at protecting the rights of animals and what could be done to better protect animals in our society?

Singer, Animals, and Pain.

In chapter four of the reader, Peter Singer talks about how animals, as well as humans, feel pain. Although we do not directly experience the pain of another being, we know they are in pain by the way they respond. In theory, we also would never wish pain upon others because we know what it feels like to be in agony. It wouldn't be right to want others to feel that way. Singer states that the vertebrates and nervous systems of most species (especially birds and mammals) are very similar. This supports that animals must feel the same way we do when we experience something that hurts and is painful. This is reason why some vegetarians do not eat meat; they do not want pain inflicted on any species since that pain is not being inflected on us. This is like the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is partly why I do not eat meat. Animals aren't going out of their way to grill my meat so why do I have the power to grill theirs?

Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage”. According to this definition, the only animals capable of feeling pain are those that experience fear, anxiety, distress and terror, similar to what humans feel. Some studies have shown that all animals (and maybe even plants) feel pain of one degree or another even if humans may not be able to tell. However, many people believe because we do not know that some animals (like fish or shrimp) actually feel pain, this is justification for killing and eating them. Also, some vegetarians choose to eat fish but no other animal and when I tell people I am a vegetarian, they ask "Do you eat fish?" Of course I don't eat fish, they are animals too and should be protected, in my opinion. Why do the fish get left out?

My question to you is: If an animal does not feel pain when being killed for food or otherwise, does this mean the killing can be justified? Also, if an animal truly does not feel pain, does this mean that that animal has less rights than other animals?

Response to "Cavalieri and Pets."

Response #2

In Emily Burke's blog, she responds to Kim's post about Paola Cavalieri and her view that all animals have basic rights, just like humans. She asks if it is morally acceptable to own a pet. Emily responds by saying it is not morally acceptable. Animals, being used as pets, are taken away from their natural environments only to be the companions to the human race. Kim and Emily both agree that the domestication of animals was unethical because it caused a major interference with their lives and there is no justifiable reason behind doing so. Humans do desire companionship and having a pet is one way of getting that companionship, but Emily argues that humans can find it in other ways like through each other. She asks, "Is the need for companionship a good justification for the domestication of animals?"

This has always been an interesting topic to me because owning pets can be seen as ethical as well as unethical; everyone has their distinct opinion about this one. Dogs were domesticated over 12,000 years ago because humans wanted help hunting and herding animals. The companionship was an added bonus. Now there are over a hundred different dog breeds. Sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs were domesticated between 9000-7000 BC, and cats, before 3000 BC. Before domestication, these animals were part of the 'wild.' They had to hunt for food and strive for survival. Being domesticated gives them a steady and reliable source of food, shelter, safety and love. As long as the animals are not being abused or mistreated but rather respected and greatly taken care for, than I see no problems with having pets.

Pets are a large part of my family. Among us, we have several cats, dogs, chickens, a goat, fish, and a ferret. We supply them with adequate food, fresh air, warmth, medical attention, and everything else they need and require to live a happy lifestyle. I worked at a veterinary clinic for two years in high school and I saw a lot of people who loved their animals more than anything and who treated them like part of the family. On the other hand, I saw abused and abandoned animals as well as a ton of strays. It breaks my heart but I still believe having pets is ethical, even for companionship reasons. I know my pets are much better off in my care than on their own. It is much better to take a pet in then have them live their lives in shelters, pet stores, or out on their own barley surviving. Now that us humans have domesticated animals, it is our responsibility to take care of them. We can't change the past and undo domestication but we can give our pets a future.

My question to you is: If a person raises his or her own chickens, cows, or pigs and gives them a fulfilling life but kills them for consumption after some time, can this be seen as ethical? How does this method of farming compare to factory farming?