Is It Morally Acceptable?

Different religions have different views on animals as a whole. When referring to religion in line with euthanasia some religions wouldn’t allow euthanasia of an animal because of the possible side effects on reincarnation when another human passes away. This is in eastern religions(Buddhism,Hinduism,Jainism), a value is given to the animals life so that if any cruelty or euthanasia could potentially harm another human when it comes to incarnation. Most Christianity nations perceive animals as a possession. So any kind of cruelty/ damage to there possession is not tolerated. Animals are widely kept through out this religion and are seen to be a big part of many Christian families. In religions such as Muslim religion some certain animals are refereed to as 'unclean' animals, this is animals such as the pig and dog. This is why some Muslim families keep dogs but they will not be allowed in the house they will be outside as a working dog or used to guard the premiss.

Buddhist behavior towards animals is not always positive. Thinking the principle of karma says that souls are reborn as animals because of past offences. Being brought back as an animal is a serious spiritual setback. Because non-human animals can't engage in conscious acts of self-improvement they can't build up their good karma, and their souls must continue to be reborn as animals until their bad karma is exhausted. Only when they are reborn as human beings can they resume their journey to enlightenment. This bad karma, and the animal's helplessness to avoid it led Buddhists in the past to think that animals are not as important as humans and therefore, do not deserve as many

Laws are not strong enough against animal cruelty and people do not know about this problem because it is not as prominent as others. Some of the reasons humans kill animals is for food, clothing, and entertainment. The way we kill animals in doing these are very brutal and inhumane. The only thing they care about is to produce a mass amount of meat, in a short period of time, and with little food to feed the animals. The last thing they are worried about is the animal itself and its feelings and needs.

ear Editor, In the article published “A Change of Heart About Animals.” In there, the author Jeremy Rifkin states that “ [Animals] they feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement, and even love- these findings are changing how we view animals.” I agree with this pretty bold statement and I feel like many parts of society are very neglecting towards animals and how they are treated, there needs to be a change. Like Rifkin said, many animals in our daily lives are like people in more ways than one.

Say what you will about killing animals, but most enlightened people will agree it takes a special kind of evil to harm an animal. After-all animals are powerless against human technology. They cannot

Remember Cecil the Lion? A lot of people were shocked, even outraged, when they heard about his death at the hands of an American hunter in 2015. The response to the lion’s death was so strong that the guy who shot Cecil basically went into hiding until he issued an apology. Our society reacts with horror when we hear about a majestic lion being shot or sacks of kittens being tossed into rivers, or owners training their dogs to fight each other for sport. However, what is the difference between killings Cecil and killing a duck, deer, cow, pig, or a chicken? How do we reconcile the strong feelings many of us have about certain animals, mainly the cute ones like kittens and puppies, with the way we actual use animals in our own lives?

The treatment of animals and humans has changed drastically over the years. Humans in the 1620’s started treating other humans as objects and used them to do their dirty work that they did not want to do because they were either simply too lazy or they just felt like they were too far above the work that they were forcing other people to do. Slavery was very popular for somewhere around 250 years. This was one of the longest ill-treatments of human beings in history. Now humans are coming up with the ideas of

In the study of philosophy, it is evident that there are notions that agree and disagree with each other. When we narrow down philosophical time periods, it is even more interesting to see how ideas conflict in such a short period of time. As we observe the period between Georg Hegel and Friedrich Nietzsche, we are approached with an array of beliefs as religious philosophy is combined with non-religious philosophy. The undeniable aspect is that each concept can be adequately compared. In studying Georg Hegel, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Friedrich Nietzsche, it is evident that each takes a supreme stance on morality. Therefore, I propose the question, “Is it morally permissible to commit suicide”? By analyzing each philosophical approach to this question, each philosopher’s notion on the concept will be revealed.

Animal abuse is something that has been around since ancient times. Even Aristotle, in his own way, abused animals. He believed that animals were merely possessions. Aristotle even wrote in his Great Chain of Being how he believed the species on earth were arranged in a hierarchy, with humans being at the top and animals at the bottom, and that those at the bottom were only meant to serve those above them (“Animal Rights”). However, because they believed in the transmigration of the soul between humans and animals, the Pythagoreans and Neo Platonists thought that people should respect animals and their interests. So while many people may not have treated animals

Inconsistencies in attitudes and behaviors towards animals largely accounts for why animals are a social issue. In the Article Having Our Dogs and Eating Them Too: Why Animals Are a Social Issue by James A. Serpell various excerpts are presented in order to represent topics such as the reasons behind animal beliefs and their uses, aspects of the “benefits” animals present, and views of the putative relationship between animal abuse and interpersonal violence. Both Internal and external factors affecting how people use animals and their beliefs regarding human-animal relationships are presented in the article. Internal factors include things such as human superiority and the mental capacity of animals. External factors include group membership

It is not okay to be subjective towards animals and treat them less than human beings. Since they feel emotions such as pain and pleasure it is not right to subjugate animals to cruel punishments or torture, because just as humans, we cannot take the suffering. It is a curiosity whether people who eat, test, or kill animals for enjoyment or for work, are as corrupt as a racist or sexist.

     Conversely, there exist equally as many challenges to raise had the ethicist taken the alternate position that animals have equal value and accordingly that their pleasure is impermissibly infringed upon when they are killed for human interest. Arguments could be presented for a bevy of actions taken on a daily basis by society as a whole. One might address the fact that using animal testing for the advancement of medicine has benefits that outweigh the pains. Similarly, while the development of land effectively kills the previously animal inhabitants, it is an accepted result that society has displayed it is willing to disregard. In each of these cases, the majority of society condones such behavior, as evidenced by their

Is it morally acceptable to impose a legal ban on burning the Qur’an? I believe that this issue is the central ethical issue to be resolved because it looks at the morality of taking away an American freedom. It also looks if it justifiable to do so if the action is taken out of hand, which goes against the moral foundation of what the United States was founded on. I believe that the banning of the burning of the Qur’an is morally justifiable even if it restricts the freedom of some of the American people. The United States has always been founded on the tolerance for all, and burning the Qur’an is hate and bigotry that should not be allowed because it can cause division among people, violence and backlash from other countries, and goes

Why is it that we as a society condemn the actions of a man against a man but very rarely a man against an animal? I think this question must be understood if we are ever to change the rights animals have. As of yet I don't believe animals have any actual rights. Rather humans have rights that involve animals. If we are to truly allow animals to have rights the same or similar to humans then we must first define what it is that makes us feel as if they are entitled to rights.

This week I learned that the Catholic Church teaches that morality responds to the human heart’s need to discover goodness and truth. These are noble traits that one would assume are present in a Catholic evangelist; however, it does not seem like the intention of preaching the word of God should not be contingent on the prospect of making money. The intention of preaching should be based on the intention of teaching people about aspects of the faith, which in itself is good. Charging money to teach people contributes to the sin of Greed, as the intention is to sell various products.