Response to "Animals and Emotions."

Response #6

I initially was going to respond to Jenna's question, which is, "Do you think our pets can or do love us in the same way we love them? Can animals love at all?" However, Hallie does a wonderful job of answering this question in her blog. At first, I wanted to state that yes, pets do love us! Although, like Hallie said, we can never enter the mind of an animal so it is impossible to infer how animals feel and what they are thinking. I would like to think that my pets love me. For example, my cat Buttons purrs nonstop around me. He sleeps next to my head at night, kneads my arms, touches noses with me, puts his arms around my neck, and follows me around nonstop. I could guess that he does love me but he may just be doing this for attention or because he knows I'm the only one that gives him treats and wet cat food. I will never know the truth. Hallie asks the question, "Do you think domesticated cats differ from dogs on the subject of pet/human relationships based on behavioral cues?"

In general and stereotypically, dogs are more affectionate and human-like. This is because they depend on people more greatly than cats do. Dogs need their owners to take them outside, feed them, walk them, groom them, and so on. Dogs don't do well on their own because they are so greatly domesticated and have been twice as long as cats (about 14,000 years). Dogs are more excited, hyper, and loyal compared to cats because cats are independent animals and do not require very much attention. My cat, Cali, basically lives outdoors. Everyday, I find her with a different animal in her mouth. No matter how often I tell her that killing animals is 'bad', she still does it because it is in her nature and what is right to her. She is highly capable of preying on her own food and finding her own shelter. She can also groom herself. The reason why she stays with me is because such a domestic lifestyle is easy. Why choose to sleep outside when she can have a warm bed?

I think domesticated animals take on different personalities, like humans. Human and pet relationships all depend on the human and the pet. I am much closer with my cat than my dog because I find my cat more affectionate and intelligent. My dog simply does not like me and only warms up to a select few. All of my pets have different aspects and can be categorized as different types of people. I once wrote a paper on the personalities of my pets; I don't see how a person can see all animals as the same and as inferior. All domesticated animals are unique and tend to adapt to their humans as well as their surroundings. If an animal has sufficient time with their human 'owner', that animal will start to take on the characteristics of their owners, dogs especially. In my experiences, I find my cats to be more friendly but maybe this is because my dog is an old, grouchy Pomeranian who barks nonstop. I think generally dogs have better relationships with humans but, if a person learns to respect and have patience for his or her cat, this relationship can become more equal since humans have to earn their cats appreciation and loyalty.

My question to you is: Should humans be able to keep non-domesticated or exotic animals (like snakes, serval cats, chinchillas) as pets? Why or why not?

Here is a link I found interesting that compares cats and dogs:
http://www.neatorama.com/spotlight/2010/05/14/cats-vs-dogs/

This is a serval cat. When I worked at the veterinary clinic in my hometown, a woman owned a serval cat (along with many other exotic animals) as a pet and brought it in to be neutered. Let's just say it wasn't the friendliest animal when it woke up.

Response to "The Death of an Animal."

Response #5

In Courtney's blog, she talks about how living is in the best interest of an animal and, if it is killed, we are taking away its right to live and enjoy life. Frederike Kaldewaij believes animals shouldn't be killed or harmed by human beings since this would take away their ability to have a fulfilling life. Killing for food, fur, or leather can not be justified, according to Kaldewaij. "Death is harmful because it thwarts an individual's desire to stay alive and other desires he or she may have for the future," states Kaldewaji. She believes all lives are instrumentally valued. Courtney then talks about euthanasia and how it effects animals who are suffering and even those who are not. Some animals are euthanized because they are seriously ill and others only because shelters are too crowded. She talks about her own experiences of having to put past pets to sleep and then asks, "If an animal is suffering (no matter if they are a pet or not), is euthanizing them in their best interests, even when they are young, or is it cutting a life short?"

I worked at a veterinary clinic for two years and part of my job was to assist the veterinary technician with euthanasias. I got to see the different reactions of the family members who owned the dog or cat that was being put to sleep. Most families were devastated; they only put their animals to sleep because they did not want to have their animals suffer and they didn't think there was any other way. One family in particular owned a dog named Savita who had leukemia. She was about twelve years old and they did all they could to save her. They brought her to the vets at least twice a week for treatment. I saw that dog suffer. She would not eat. She could not get up. She would just go to the bathroom in her cage because she didn't know what else to do. The family and the dog fought and fought for her life but nothing could be done. Finally, after quite a few years of the endless battle of leukemia, they put her to sleep.

I think it is in the best interest of the animal to be put out of its misery and suffering. If nothing can be done to save the animal or stop it from being in pain, then there is nothing wrong with euthanasia. It is a painless and quick way to stop an animal from suffering, if there is no foreseen end to said suffering. I think age does matter when it comes to deciding whether to put an animal to sleep or not. If it is old and sick but has lived a fulfilling life, as long as there truly is no known solution to the suffering, euthanizing the animal is the right thing to do. If the animal is young, it's much harder to make such a decision because it deserves life. But, nothing and no one should have to suffer, plain and simple.

Now, I also saw many people abandon their pets or want them to be put to sleep simply because they could no longer care for the pet. Sometimes owners would move or have children and they felt like they couldn't handle their animals any longer. If the owners asked the vet to euthanize their pet for this reason, the veterinarian would refuse but offer to take the animal into his care so he can find him or her a family that did have time and care for the pet. Under some circumstances, euthanasia is truly whats right no matter if the animal is old or young (only if it is to stop an animal from suffering) but in other instances, like if a family just does not want their pets anymore, then it should not be done. Taking a life, even if its for the most ethical reason, should be thought out and decided carefully. As long as it's painless, quick, and safe, then it is justifiable.

My question to you is: In the reading (page 62), Kaldewaij states, "There do not seem to be good reasons to assume that the harm that death causes animals that are kept for food production is much less serious than the human harm of death." Do you think many people hold this view (why or why not?) and how do you feel about it?

Huntin'

I come from a small Vermont town where deer hunting season is like an extended holiday and everyone has their "trophy" deer heads on their living room walls. People wake up at the crack of down, put on their camouflage, and trek into the woods to wait around for the next unsuspecting buck. Usually they come home dragging their feet before the after noon even begins, but every now and then, someone gets lucky. When a person shoots a buck, what matters is how many 'points' it has (for those none hunters, points are the tines coming off the beams of an antler). Then the person puts the deer in the back of their truck and drives it down the road to the only store in my town so he or she can weigh it. The bigger, the better. When people pass by the store, they get the unfortunate site of a bloody dead deer being weighed since the weighing is done outside.

I have never been hunting nor have I ever tasted venison and I can promise you that I never will. Deer hunting season is not something I look forward to, but my best friend and her family live for it. They even put on hunters' breakfasts at the Fish and Game for all of the hungry hunters. To be honest, I do not know what to think about the subject of hunting. Some people do it for the trophy; they don't care about the meat or anything else, they just want that deer head with its beady eyes staring back at them on their wall. I think that is wrong, killing for game. However, my best friend is part of the lower class and her family hunts for the meat. They love it and make sure none of it goes to waste. I don't know how I can argue against hunting when it does feed her family at a low cost. I'm always going back and forth with this one.

Hunting has been a vital part of mans life since the beginning of their existence. For the past thousands of years, mankind has depended on the harvesting of game to live. Ancient manuscripts and even cave paintings have shown that hunting played an important role in the people's lives. During those times no one questioned the correctness of hunting because it was so essential to their life and part of their nature. Around 1650, the "new world" was being colonized and people lived off the land. Deer, turkey, squirrels, rabbits, doves, and pheasants were all hunted and killed for food. Now that hunting is being questioned and seen in a different view, what's going to be the verdict?

Every time I start discussing hunting with my friends, they always bring up interesting points like how it stops over population or provides for their families. They also say that they 'respect' the animals that they are hunting, but how can 'respect' be shown to something a person is about to kill? Hunting is restricted to certain areas and people do need licenses to hunt. Plus, future hunters need to take the Hunters Safety Course. But what happens when a hunter shoots the animal but can not find it? The animal is obviously wounded somewhere in the woods. Now it will be in agony until it dies from lack of food or from another predator. I know no matter what I say, hunting will not cease and I will never be able to change the minds of my friends, but this topic is interesting to think about since it surrounds my everyday life.

I want to know your views about hunting. In what ways can this 'hobby' or 'sport' be seen as ethical and just? In what ways is it wrong and just another act of cruelty to animals? Is hunting just another sport or is it murder?

Response to "Exploiting Animals."

Response #4

In Shelby's blog, she talks about how our support and usage of animals as property and food seems to be done without realizing the effects and harm it causes. She states how Kant sees humans as superior because we are the only species that can refer to ourselves as "I." Humans are "beings altogether different in rank and dignity from things," according to Kant. She asks, "Is meat eating usually a carefully examined decision, or an unexamined habit?" However, Kant disapproves of kicking a dog in fear of that person becoming brutal. Shelby then brings up the point that all humans are taught that brutality is wrong, although, people choose to hurt animals before they would choose to hurt/torture a person. Shelby believes, as do I, that if people had to kill and prepare their own meat, the world would be filled with more vegetarians. She agrees with the Socrates quote, "the unexamined life is not worth living," and wants human beings to be more aware of what, or who, they are eating.

I fully believe meat eating is an unexamined habit, minus the occasional exception. This summer, I watched the movie "Food Inc" (which I recommend to everyone!) and I learned so much about the food industry that I never imagined to be true. Early on, our food choices are made for us. As babies, we're fed what whatever baby food our parents want to feed us. As children, we learn to eat what is given to us with minor complaints. We don't ask what "beef" is or where it comes from. Our parents say we need our protein so we keep eating meat without question. Once we are old enough to make our own food choices, we don't question what our parents have taught us. We just eat what we always have even if we don't know where it comes from or who produces it. Some people begin to question the meat and food industries, but others like the obliviousness and simplicity of just enjoying what is prepared; dead animal or not.

Once we get into the habit of eating meat, it's hard to give that up. I have struggled to be a vegetarian because I'm just so used to ordering meat at a restaurant or eating my mom's chicken parm. We eat meat because it's easy, it's what we know. To question this is to question tradition and our culture (or so we think). On Thanksgiving, how hard is it to stop yourself or question why we eat the big juicy turkey in the middle of the table? And who could ever consider a tofu turkey? So untraditional, right? While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. I think the reason why people don't seem to think about what they eat is because it feels like our traditions and what has always been would be jeopardized. The meat industry does a pretty good job of keeping the public away from the truth and that seems to be okay with most people. A lot of people I know don't want to know how their food is prepared. They don't want to change the way they eat so they don't think about their food. Why change what we have done since babies? Eating meat is in our nature and most people don't question human nature.

My question to you is: How do you think is the best possible way to inform the public about not only the meat industry but how all of our foods are grown and produced? Do you think people would listen and maybe change their ways?

"Food Inc" Trailer

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?