The Great Ape Project Case Study

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.

Peter Singer has written many works in support of animal rights. In one of his greatest works Animal Liberation, Singer goes into great depths on how similar in biology animals are to human beings. Another strong point was not only the biological resemblance, but also the behavioral tendencies and traits humans and nonhuman species share. There are two major areas of focus that Singer puts emphasis on that need to be recognized for the purposes of my argument. One focus is this utilitarian approach that only the human species carry: the belief of ethical and morally good behavior should be extended to the consideration of nonhuman species. The second focus that is the basis for my argument is Singer’s argument against a huge human social construct labeled speciesism.

In the article,”Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?”, author Ed Yong implies that different types of primates such as apes should be treated more like human beings. He starts by stating a claim the there is some type of schism between different types of scientists and the world. Yong also explains the the Swiss law and how it protects the “dignity” of organisms. He also states that the apes are basically in “battle” Yong then starts to talk about what measures the GAP tries to take in order to give the apes some type of rights. He also explains the different measures that other countries have taken to help the apes within their country, and then he makes another claim in which

a. Because of this, we need to take cruelty towards animals seriously. It is a sign of aggression and violence and can often lead to even more gruesome crimes, not just towards animals, but towards humans as well.

“Is it right, in the deepest moral sense, for one conscious being to eat another?” Throughout Eating Apes, Dale Peterson takes the readers through what he experienced, saw, and the issues presented with trying to protect the apes to gear us to answer that question. He was able to do this with the stories of Karl Ammann, who took the photographs presented in the book, and Joseph Melloh, a gorilla hunter from Cameroon. Prior to taking this class, my knowledge of apes going extinct went as far as being aware that we needed to save them from extinction. However, I was unaware of neither how brutal apes were treated nor how pivotal they were to people in Central Africa’s diet – until I began reading Eating Apes. Eating Apes is a descriptive

In “Speciesism and Moral Status”, Peter Singers argument is that when it comes to the value of life, we should not discriminate in regards to species, and cognitive ability should play some role in moral status. In comparison to humans with “profound mental disabilities” (Singer 569), the use of the gorilla Koko’s higher IQ score, not needing constant supervision, or border collies being able to provide useful work to society, serves as a strong logos appeal regarding the relationship between cognitive ability and moral status. Singer is effectively able to support his claims by continuously referencing respected philosophers and individuals such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and even Pope John Paul II. Validity and integrity are very much solidified in Singers article with the use of counter arguments as well as alternate views to his own arguments. The structure and information Singer provides is clear and organized, and does not leave his audience confused due to the strong use of factual, relevant support of his argument.

Primates should have full human rights. Primates or even animals in general are indeed human in every way. They cry when they are sad and they laugh when they are happy just like a human. Animals deserve to be in their natural habitat. I would like to see all other species enjoy the right to live peacefully in their home and that is why I am a full supporter of this bill. I would want to see it as a

All around the world, people are abusing animals. Animal cruelty is a big deal because some people do not look at animals as being important; some people do not see a problem with hurting them. Animal cruelty can be define as being a malicious treatment that can cause undue pain or being mistreated. Seeing an animal get brutalize by some humans seems to be cruel. Getting kicked in the ribs, left for starvation and even used for entertainment seems to be heartless. Why abuse animals when they have not done anything to harm a human. If one must see what they are really doing to these animals, then animal cruelty would not be a big deal.

Catholic views on animal abuse is varied greatly. The ‘traditional’ view is that humans are made in a different image than animals. It proclaims that humans have been given ‘dominion’ over nature, meaning humans can use animals in accordance to their own needs (gen 1:28). However, many Catholics disagree and believe that God gave human ‘stewardship’ over the animals, which means we are put on this Earth to look after and care for God’s creation (Luke 12:6). There are a number of Catholic authorities that discourage animal abuse;

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

I think that is not true because animals just dont have as much of a way to express to us that its hurting them, some animals used cant even make a sound wich is very hard for the animal not being able to show there in pain.

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

A Judeo-Christian interpretation from the Bible stated that “dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare (Aquinas T., 2006).”

In his article “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer discusses the widely-held belief that, generally speaking, there is no more inequality in the world, because all groups of formerly oppressed humans are now liberated. However, it often goes without notice that there are groups of nonhuman animals that continue to face unequal treatment, such as those that are consumed or used as scientific test subjects. Singer’s article criticizes the belief that because humans are generally more intelligent than nonhuman animals, then all humans are superior to all nonhuman animals. Singer argues that intelligence is an arbitrary trait to base the separation of humans and nonhumans, and declares that the only trait that one can logically base moral value is the capacity to have interests, which is determined by a creature’s ability to suffer. Singer explains that in order to stay consistent with the basic principle of equality, anything that has the capacity to suffer ought to have its needs and interests recognized, just as humans’ needs and interests are currently recognized through what he calls “equal consideration.” In this paper, I will explain Singer’s notion of equal consideration as the only relevant sense of equality and why it applies to the rights of both human and nonhuman species that are

Animals have a beating heart and they do contribute to this planet so they do deserve the respect and careful handling a person gets. As humans we are free to do as we please, yet Jacques Deval tells us, “God loved the birds and invented trees. Man loved the birds and invented cages.” God created all living creatures, and loved them all, to be respected equally, Ezekiel 34:3 tells how a man can use any animal to his needs, but when the animals need him to take care of them, the man does not want to help and respect the animals as they had to him.“You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock.” Animals do deserve the respect, and it all leads back to the golden rule, Treat others the way you would want to be treated, which also applies to animals.