Animals At War: Ethical Dilemmas

Part 2 Actives pg.333 1. Cats are meaner then dogs, on the other hand some dogs are more aggressive 2. War is always bad; on the other hand it keeps our country free 3. Better safe than sorry, on the other hand risks are worth taking in life.

Although he had his time occupied by training his regiment for combat, Roosevelt preserved his captivation for animals, one characteristic which gave importance to his war account.

Criteria #1 All facts should be accurate. This book describes animals, both large and small, that had real life military involvement. The author is a known historical writer, however, there are no sources cited throughout the book, however, readers become lost in the text easily. The text is rich with facts and well written with great detail that it does not require readers to question the accuracy.

A recurring comparison between soldiers and animals strips the men of individuality and depicts them as helpless and vulnerable, a significant contrast to the public perception of troops as ‘heroic’ and ‘patriotic’. Jim and his fellow soldiers are driven in a cattle truck where there is a notice that says, “Eight horses or forty men”. This juxtaposition provokes the reader to associate the men with animals and the author

International anti-war activist Mahatma Gandhi once stated that “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” This quote holds a lot of truth in The Wars by Timothy Findley. The animals and people that are present in the book share a palpable bond. Robert and Rodwell, two young soldiers on the English army regard animals as one of their own companions. They do not see them on a lower level, but rather on the same level, believing they deserve equal love and kindness. In fact, certain traits they observe animals are the same traits they view themselves. Robert and Rodwell’s relationship with their surrounding animals are comparable in terms of their empathetic temperaments and the intelligence

Additional evidence of their animalistic behavior is seen when the soldiers are hunting down their enemies in battle, similar to how a predator hunts their prey. Their animal-like mindset allows them to flawlessly kill without much emotion or thought. “The first is the comparison between the lives of the soldiers to that of animals who are driven simply by the survival instinct, an urge that motivates violence and killing.” (Bloom). The animal instinct that is instilled in them gives them the power they need to kill their enemies.

Understanding the nature of animals is essential for understanding the depth of their loyalty and their eagerness to give it. The concept of loyalty in animals, particularly in relation to the loyalty shown by humans, arises several times

Throughout all of history, animals have been used for numerous reasons by military organizations across the globe. They have been used for various different purposes from medical research and training, to sniffing out bombs, to protecting soldiers and so on. The questions of are animals useful is not the argument here, its whether is it humane to use animals in nation’s military. While they provide and outstanding service and an incredible advantages, animals can get hurt in the process and some animals spend their entire lives doing work for the military, so should animals be used by the military?

In all the american wars we, as people have worked hard, but there was more than just people on the battlefield. Animals ranging from as simple as dogs, to as strange as slugs have been said to be the key to saving soldiers lives.They have faced as much pain and suffering as soldiers have and we have put these animals in dangerous places because they were our only chance of survival. Lots of animals like, slugs, chickens, and canaries were used to detect poisonous gases. Dogs and pigeons have all been used as messengers. Even glow worms, dolphins, and sealions were apart of the military. Animals contributed their strength, sweat, and lives to winning the wars.

Thomas I. White, a professor of business at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, states that research demonstrates that dolphins view themselves and other dolphins as “individuals,” a mind trait similar to humans. The new findings about dolphins should give them a “moral standing as individuals, not just a group,” (Clemmitt Animal Intelligence). All of the new research surfacing about animal intelligence and rights could give these animals, such as the ones in the Navy’s Marine Mammal Program, a new standing chance towards freedom

The Animal Bill of Rights is meant to protect animals that don’t have legal protection. There are laws that protect some of the animals, but are often insufficient and full of loopholes. In this society we have many people who think the total opposite of defending the animals. It may be because of selfish thinking. Sometimes one might think, it is needed for them to survive or because they want to be able to show their children the animals in person at zoos. Now, the question is, if animals need a Bill of Rights? I strongly believe that they do need a Bill of Rights because there are animals on the day-to-day basis that are being mistreated and abused by humans that don’t care for them. We need the Bill of Rights because it will give a better voice to the animals being treated as if they were nothing in this world. I agree with what the source indicated “ Animals in the U.S. are considered just “property” by law, even though they are living, feeling beings”. If they were not considered “property” humans wouldn’t be harming these animals and would rather be caring or not giving them much attention if they aren’t an animal enthusiast.

The study of good and bad, right and wrong, moral principles or value held by a person or society, promoting human welfare, maximizing freedom minimizing pain and suffering is called ethics. The discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings and also the value and moral status of the environment and its non-human contents is called environmental ethics. It considers the ethical relationship between the humans and the environment. Animal and animal rights are the highlighted topic in the environmental ethics.

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

From the earliest days of man, creative uses for animals have arisen. Since the time of them Mongolian chief Timur and Sultan Muhmad Khan, many military uses have been created. These creative ideas are still created today, now modern day countries find many uses of animals such as monkeys, seals, dolphins, goats, elephants, and other animals in the military. Though the truth is right in front of our eyes, many people do not believe that these animals show up on the battlefield and in the oceans with humans defusing bombs and attacking enemies on the other lines.

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.