Should Beasts Be Reclused In Menageries Or Not?

Feminist scholars are concerned with a broad range of issues and topics for discussion. Taking this into consideration, animal studies is a new and edgy field, especially in the context of feminist theory. The general findings of this paper include patriarchal establishments, and speciesism as an institution of oppression influencing

Animal Rights A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

(2010, November 22). [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/32IDVdgmzKA Fieser, J. (2015). Introduction to business ethics [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ CompassionUSA. (2014, December 3). Chicken factory farmer speaks out [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/YE9l94b3x9U PerdueChicken. (2014, August 1). Perdue cartoon commercial?Fresh taste [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/jz2jkpN_DGo Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13-26). Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm

Michael Pollan’s, An Animal’s Place, analyzes the controversial topic of animal abuse while Pollan himself struggles to comprehend the relationship between humans and non-humans. Whether animals are used for food or clothing, Pollan’s impartial view of the moral ethics behind the treatment of animals acknowledges that we as readers are susceptible to influence and he encourages the questioning of our own beliefs. Rather than succumbing to Singer’s, All Animals are Equal demands of making it our “Moral obligation to cease supporting the practice” (pg.4), Pollan conveys the benefits as well as the concerns to the consummation of animals. From the personal connection Pollan establishes with his readers, his progressive beliefs

More than a million different kinds of animals inhabit the earth. The exact number is not known, for new kinds are continually being discovered. They live in the seas, from the surfaces down to the black depths where no ray of sunlight penetrates. Animals can be domesticated or left in the wild where they truly belong. However, as time passed by, nowadays, animals are endlessly being exploited and fought for around the globe. Different opinions from different countries and races have divided to defend to defend their views and make a stand. This issue about the animals’ welfare should be taken more seriously until we find the right answers.

In Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

AngelicaAyala 10/9/15 ERWC Per. 2 When a cause is brought up and given light, it has a way of splitting people in how they react to it. And such has been true when it comes to granting new rights, because it’s brobdingnagian in our society that is always hungry for freedoms. We are split down the middle on whether, or not to consider animals, just like us, and thus deserve the rights we hold in our society today. On the other end, are people who don’t believe such rights should be given to animals. While the pro-arguments hold value, there is much more to see on the other end. As to why animals shouldn’t have a “Bill of Rights” like we as humans do. It’s shown in various different ways, even the most popular arguments held by the opposing side. Such as cows hurting the environment, zoo’s being inhumane, and pets. There are other factors as well to take into consideration such as food, psychology medicine, and even culture.

Alex Villa Professor Chen GEO 102 16 November 2017 General Purpose: To Persuade Topic: Animal rights Purpose Formula: To persuade my fellow classmates, who are consumers of animal based products and supporters of zoos and wildlife conservation efforts, that animals deserve the same rights as humans and should not be used for profit.

17) What are the fundamentals of animal economics? * The fundamentals of animal economics are how big is a home range at various seasons, what food and cover must it include, when and how is it defended against trespassing and whether ownership in an individual, family, or group affair. (December, pg. 86)

As you look at the text of “A Change of Heart about Animals,” answer and then discuss the following questions: 1. What does it mean to have “a change of heart”? To have a change of heart means to change the way we think and act towards all types of animals. 2. What

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs.

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

McQuade Ryan Philosophy 1000C Professor Ring December 7, 14 Are Animals Considered Human People? One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

Midgley’s main thesis in the story, Animals and the Problem of Evil is that humans classify animals as evil beasts and separate our habits to hide the fact that we live similar to them. Midgley uses the separation of chaos and order of humans and animals and the beastial comparison to aniamls to support her main thesis. I have chosen to focus on her explanation of society’s comparison to animals as beastial and evil and how we distance ourselves from them even though the two species live closer than what most of us think.

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the