Do animals deserve the right to vote or the right to legal council? Most people would say no to giving animals the right to vote or the right to legal council or any other rights that humans are privileged to posses. Most people would argue that animals are not as intelligent or mechanically advanced as humans and therefore do not deserve the same legal rights as humans. However, animals are similar to humans in many ways so they deserve some basic rights.
In Steven M. Wise’s “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” he argues that animals deserve the same rights as humans because they have human qualities. Wise argues that animals are autonomous, meaning they have sentience, language and a rational plan for one’s life and therefore deserve basic rights. Recent and past observations have shown that animals have the ability to act on impulse and “at least some nonhuman animals have extraordinary minds.” Some animals, like apes, also have all the same emotions as humans, act rationally, count, use and make tools, and much more. Wise argues that based on the knowledge developed through to the 21st century, laws should be changed to give animals the basic rights they deserve.
As Wise points out, animals are more similar to humans than was originally known when basic rights were established. In one way that animals are similar to humans, they possess a language and morality. All animals have the ability to communicate with each other and with other species. Take for example, when the rattlesnake feels threatened it shakes its tail. The tail rattles, or makes a noise, to warn other animals or even humans that it is upset. Also, with animals ability to communicate within themselves, they develop a since of morality and a sense a belonging just like a human might if he/she belonged to a team or a group. Some animals, like elephants, travel in packs and act like a family and even watch over each others’ young. The elephants show a sense of morality within the pack.
Animals have sentience, making them again similar to humans. Sentience is the ability to experience pleasure or pain. Animals along with humans can experience both. For example, when dogs feel the pleasure of having their belly scratched they often wiggle their leg in response. In a similar fashion humans often smile when they feel the pleasure from something. On the other hand, both animals and humans experience pain. Humans wince or cry or yell when they experience pain and animals do the same. A dog yelps when their foot gets stepped on and they often continue to wince depending on how much pain they are in. Sentience is shared among humans and animals.
Animals, just like humans, develop a rational plan for their lives. Most humans in their life plan on going to school and getting a job and maybe getting married and having children. Animals do the same. In the study Jane Goodall did on apes in Gombe, she observed their ability to teach each other and to “create cultural tradition that they pass on to their descendants.” The apes were able to raise and teach their young a way of life and these young will grow and develop into adults who search for mates and have children of their own. Animals and humans develop and nurture the plans that they have for their lives.
Wise also points out several other significant similarities between humans and animals. He states that animals, like humans, have extraordinary minds. The study of the bonobo and the human 2-year-old, that Wise references, proves the idea. Also Wise mentions that from Jane Goodall’s study, animals are self-conscious, use insight to solve problems and act intentionally just like humans. Animals compare objects, use tools and count in the same manner as humans. With all of these very human qualities and the aforementioned ones, animals are very much like humans.
The law of similarity suggests that because humans have rights and animals are similar to humans, the animals therefore deserve basic rights. Animals do not necessarily need or deserve all the same rights that humans have, but they do deserve some basic ones. Animals do not need the right to vote, but animals do deserve certain rights when it comes to how they are treated, their health and the conditions in which they are required to live. Animals possess sentience and feel pain so they should be taken care of and treated kindly. Animals are similar to humans and can act rationally and have emotions and deserve the right to protection and shelter. Since animals are so similar to humans, they deserve the basic rights that provide them with the comforts that most humans enjoy.
Humans are just a different species of animals and animals have many similarities to humans. If humans are just another type of animal and they have many rights, then all other animals deserve basic rights. Other animals may not be as sophisticated as humans so they do not need all the same rights as humans, but they do deserve the basic ones that protect their comfort of life. A Venn diagram would have a large section of overlap between humans and animals and thus there needs to be a proportional overlap in the Venn diagram representing humans’ and animals’ rights.
Imagine if all the animals in the world had never existed. You would wake up and roll out of bed, not to be greeted by wet kisses from your loving dog, but to begin your day in solitary. After you shower and dress, you head downstairs to get breakfast. Opening up the refrigerator, you do not find milk and eggs, nor do you find bread in the cupboard. You settle for a glass of juice. After putting on your shoes and coat, you head out for work at the hospital. Once you arrive, you are greeted with the overwhelming number of sick patients that have few treatments available to them because drugs are hard to develop and there is no safe way to test them. The world would surely be a terrible place without the presence of animals. Many people do not acknowledge their importance, but in reality, we depend on animals every single day. For this reason, animals deserve to be seen on an equal level to humans. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven M. Wise, a professor at Harvard Law School and Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, argues that animals deserve the same rights as humans because they share many of the same qualities. Animals contribute so much to humanity that the least humanity could do in return is give them equal rights and treat them with dignity. In his essay, Steven M. Wise begins his argument by pointing out that many consider the characteristic of autonomy a defining aspect of being human, but then he shows that autonomy is not a sufficient criterion to use because it cannot be clearly defined. Next, Wise argues that animals have been proven to possess language and comprehension skills. As he states, “For decades, though, evidence has been accumulating that at least some nonhuman animals have extraordinary minds.” Furthermore, he argues that animals can express emotions and a sense of higher intelligence like humans. As he strongly supports, “…they have been known to teach, deceive, and empathize with others.” Finally, Wise demands that animals deserve the same legal rights as humans because they express so many human qualities. It is believed that animals cannot possibly be equal to humans because they do not possess the quality of autonomy. However, autonomy has been proven to be difficult if not impossible to define, so it does not make sense to use autonomy as a criterion to judge animals on. As Wise argues, “Most philosophers, and just about every judge, reject Kant’s rigorous conception of autonomy, for they can easily imagine a human who lacks it, but can still walk about making decisions.” As an example, many murders exist in our society and their actions are rarely ever seen as “rational.” Still, they are given the right to a fair trial, and even if they are placed in prison, they are often treated with more humanity than animals raised on factory farms, where animals are treated inhumanely all their lives only to be slaughtered later. If autonomy cannot be applied to humans, then it should not be used against animals. Instead, people should consider other criteria to judge whether animals should receive rights, such as individuality, mental capacity, or emotions.
Many people do not believe that animals have language and comprehension abilities. They use this point to justify the cruelty they inflict upon animals. Since animals cannot understand how they are being treated and cannot physically voice their objections, many believe that they may be used for human purposes. Furthermore, it is believed that animals do not need rights. However, Wise argues differently by referring to a 7-year-old bonobo Kanzi who possess the more comprehension skills than Alia, a human 2-year-old. Wise explains, “In the tests, both human and bonobo had to struggle, as we all do, with trying to make sense of the mind of a speaker. When Kanzi was asked to ‘put some water on the vacuum cleaner,’ he gulped water from a glass, marched to the vacuum cleaner, and dribbled the water over it.” Animals have been proven to possess a very large understanding of their world. This enforces that it is time to stop seeing animals as incoherent things that may be abused by humans. They are equal to humans in many ways, including in their ability to comprehend. Animals could lead much better lives if they would simply be granted basic rights. If animals were not seen as an easy target for people to make a profit from, then there could be great reduction in animal cruelty and abuse. However, many people believe that animals do not deserve rights. They argue that animals are not equal to humans because they do not have the ability to experience emotion, and therefore, their purpose is for our use. Wise disagrees, and he provides evidence concerning apes. He explains, “In the 40 years since Jane Goodall arrived at Gombe, she and others have shown that apes have most, if not all, of the emotions that we do. They are probably self-conscious; many of them can recognize themselves in a mirror. They use insight, not just trial and error, to solve problems.” With this in mind, animals need to be seen as equal to humans if there is any hope in making progress for their humane treatment. Animals could easily be helped if policymakers developed more extensive laws that protected animals from exploitation by humans. For example, puppy mills, where dogs are bred continuously in order to supply pet stores with a sufficient amount of purebred dogs, have been a growing problem in the U.S. Puppy mills are inhumane and harmful to the animals that are forced to work there. Nevertheless, this problem could be solved simply if the public gave these animals basic rights and made stricter laws that prevented the abusive treatment of puppy mills. With rights, animals would be helped on so many levels; most importantly, animals would not be seen as “things” that may be taken advantage of and then disposed of at humans’ convenience. Think back to what the world would be like without animals. Is that the type of world that you would want to live in or want your children to live in? We as a population depend on animals, and they help us in many aspects of life, providing us with companionship, a supply of food, and even safer medicines. The least we could do in return for their sacrifice is to provide them with basic legal rights. Rights could be so easily given to animals if only we demanded it. All it takes is a push for more laws from policymakers, and the lives of millions of animals could be improved drastically. Animals cannot stand up for themselves, and they do not have the capability to voice their opinions. Therefore, it is up to humans to represent animals and to make sure that their basic rights are not being violated
Guantanamo Bay, while open, produced fear in American people because of the terrorists detained there, but also in the prisoners, who underwent brutal torture condoned by the CIA. Some prisoners faced less harsh punishments. Guards manipulated time, serving food at odd hours, changing clocks, and in general confusing the inmates as to whether it was day or night. Sometimes guards interrogated a prisoner, dismissed him, and moments later called him in again all in an attempt to drive him into himself when he could no longer rely on the outside world. Even worse, prisoners lived in 8’ by 12’ cells, alone, and in the dark for 22 hours every day. They lacked the contact necessary for almost all human beings to function properly. Interrogation methods also include stripping prisoners naked in front of women employees, in the cold, and for hours on end. In one case, Mohammed al-Qahtani, a prisoner suspected of helping the 9/11 attacks, was led on a leash and forced to perform dog tricks for those watching. His experiences in Gitmo almost took his life. Therefore, torture should never be legalized because it condones violence, displaying the idea that America supports inflicting pain on others; that makes what the prisoners do no better than the CIA and guards. In “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, the two authors argue that America would benefit from torture’s legalization by justifying that more innocent people would be saved. They explain that the life of a criminal matters less than the life of an innocent person in danger. Therefore, in such a situation, the government should condone the torture of that prisoner in order to save the person. They make their argument by refuting three criticisms of torture. First, they provide the “slippery slope argument:” that if torture is used in certain situations, it will become more popular. They in fact believe that if torture is presented in the open, the act will be used less frequently. Second, they argue that torture will not dehumanize society because America already accepts self-defense as an acceptable motive to kill. Finally, they address that when torturing someone, no one can be sure that it “will in face result in us saving an innocent life.” They refute that by saying it may not, but the chance is better than allowing criminals to freely walk without attempting to find the innocent person. Also, as society is already dehumanized, the torturer is in fact doing the right thing and in no way will dehumanize himself by torturing prisoners.
The most effective argument in favor of torture states that by inflicting pain on the convicted, an innocent person’s life can be saved. Bagaric and Clarke agree that no one can be sure that a life will be saved; however, they deem the possibility that someone could survive as more important than the safety and comfort of the prisoner. They base whether torture is acceptable or not on the “best evidence at the time.” When there is no evidence of a risk, torture is “reprehensible.” However, the likelihood of a torturer ceasing violence depending on if there is a definite possibility of danger after becoming accustomed to the violence as a means of gaining information is minimal. Donald Dzagulones, a former American torturer at Vietnam, considers torture as “much a part of war as death is.” Dzagulones watched Vietnamese soldiers tortured, and partook in many of them himself. Although he would never torture out of the context of war, he notes that “the brutality doesn’t stop when the shooting stops.” In war, torture could be used as an effective means to obtain information from the opposing army, but if continually used it crosses the line between possibly necessary and brutal. In cases where the shooting stops and torture continues, the torturers adopt that persona full-time and the result is continuous violence mixed with a person that knows nothing other than to inflict pain in order to receive information that is relevant or not.
development of language is not. Therefore, animals do not have the capacity to form a language which makes them, yet again, even less qualified for legal rights. Both judgments and language are forms used to convey emotion, which again is an argument used for supporting animal rights. In fact, Wise uses this argument saying that animals like to protect their young and that apes groom their family members, showing that they care. While this could potentially be an act of caring, the likely cause is again a survival mechanism. If animals did not protect their young or did not groom each other they would open themselves up for disease and destruction. Consequently, humans associate these survival mechanisms with the feelings that they have as human beings. When humans protect and take care of their young they have feelings of love, which they assume that animals of a lower species must also feel. However, animals of a lower species are working on less brain power and therefore are responding to inner drives. Even though humans also have these inner drives, they can apply these inner drives to a more deep connection because of a better developed brain. Thus animals are not as advanced as human beings and therefore do not experience feelings the way that people do, which means that they do not need legal rights. Wise may argue that animals have the ability feel, but rather they have the ability to produce feelings within humans. This ability that animals have to induce emotions within people could be another form of survival. While a dog may be able to, follow their owner around, respond to commands, and play fetch it does not mean that they have the right to have legal rights. Animals and even humans are built to have their species survive, considering that is the point of all forms of life. If a species does not develop techniques in which to survive than they die.
Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue in “Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible” that torture is permissible in situations where an innocent life is at stake. The authors state that the “right to self-defense” is an inviolable right that extends to the defense of the hostage. Therefore, society should choose to inflict harm on the wrongdoer and not the innocent victim. However, torture can be permissible on other justifications as well. Torture should be permissible when the torturer is punishing an individual who has taken an innocent life as hostage, because the hostage essentially is tortured by being a captive. Consequently, torturing the wrongdoer is justified because he/she gives up his/her right of self-defense when he/she violates the same right of the victim. Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue that torture is permissible when an innocent person's life is at stake. They argue that torture is justified when an innocent life is at stake because it “the right to self-defense…extends to the defense of another.” Bagaric and Clarke go on to display three counterarguments that may arise to the approval of torture immediately followed by the reasoning of why the counterarguments are futile. First, if society allows torture, the use of torture will increase, however, torture is already widespread. Second, torture will dehumanize society. Though, favoring the interests of the wrongdoer over the innocent victim would be dehumanizing society greater. Finally, torturing may not always save an innocent life, yet given the evidence at the time we must act accordingly. Bagaric and Clarke continue to highlight their justifications on why life-saving torture is a humane practice. They state that our perspectives on whose moral rights we are infringing are skewed. They argue that all parties must have equal consideration and that we have to go toward the path that will afflict less pain, "when we are confronted with a situation where must choose between who will bear unavoidable pain, we need to take a pain-minimization approach." Lastly, objecting torture with fear of dehumanizing the torturer is refuted with examples of doctors, parents, prisons, all of who may inflict pain through surgery, spanking, imprisoning, all in order in saving lives or attributing (feel like if I don’t include these two aspects of the essay, im leaving out a chunk of the essay)
In “Torture: When The Thinkable is Morally Permissible,” Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue that dehumanization occurs when torturers physically harm the tortured. Torturing occurs throughout the world even to this day, and the act of the torturing doesn’t hinder those who torture. If we are to say, like Bagaric and Clarke say, normal jobs like surgeons aren’t dehumanized. A doctor wouldn’t stop an operation just because he knew that the pain he was inflicting could be considered torture on some level. People in the United States Armed Forces would not stop their jobs in the Middle East of hunting insergants just because they are hunting them. They are hurting few to protect many. The point of letting innocent people die while deciding not to physically persuade by small means. Narrow perspectives are being taken on dehumanization.
Animals deserve the same legal rights as humans, or at least a few privileges. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven Wise argues that non-human animals deserve human rights based on autonomy, a sense of justice, the possession of language, and having a rational plan for one’s life. Wise argues that animals display the same emotions as humans and have human-like characteristics that should guarantee animal rights. However, Wise never indicates what rights he wants to give animals. Humans should secure some basic rights for animals, even if it isn’t a full set of legal rights. Non-human animals have many human-like characteristics. Animals plan for the future, a characteristic used to argue that animals deserve rights. Many species mate for life and they are trying to survive. Therefore, they choose a partner who will increase their chance of survival. Pairs of animals locate a home where they can survive, but also their offspring can be raised safely. Although intelligence is an important characteristic for obtaining rights, it is often overlooked in animals. Evidence has been building for decades that show animals have incredible mental capabilities. Wise used the example of a study comparing Kanzi, a bonobo, to Alia, a human. The study examined the difference in language-comprehension tests between the 7-year-old bonobo and the 2-year-old human. Kanzi performed well on all tasks, but Wise stated that “Alia didn’t have a clue what to do.” Jane Goodall also showed that apes use insight to solve problems. Along with others, Goodall showed that apes use tools, count, and act intentionally. The apes showed other human-like characteristics that would surprise people. They recognized themselves in a mirror, formed cultural traditions, lived in political societies, and limited the power of alpha males with coalitions. Under Steven Wise’s conditions, these traits indicate that animals are qualified for rights. Animals make sacrifices and even die for humans. Theses expenses occur mostly with working animals, like police or search and rescue animals. Police dogs can be placed into a line of fire without protection. Search and rescue animals are also placed in dangerous situations for the benefit of humanity. Many search and rescue animals search for survivors after a disaster. An example is the September 11th attack, where search and rescue dogs were taken into the ruble of the fallen towers. The dogs were looking for people trapped in the destroyed buildings and were being exposed to the dangers of unstable structures. Other animals forfeiting for humans are the food animals. These animals are raised purely to be slaughtered and fed to humans. But not all animals that make sacrifices are trained to do so. Sometimes, a pet will come to the rescue of an owner in distress. The pet could run off a robber or fight another animal to protect its owner.
These costs should not be ignored, but how to recognize them? By giving non-humans deserve legal rights. However, no one wants a horse voting in an election. The solution is giving non-human animals certain legal rights, like the right to good living conditions, and proper treatment. Some animals currently have horrible living conditions. Just look at zoos around the country. Most of them give the inhabitants adequate room but there are zoos where the animals are cramped into small areas for their entire lives. These conditions can also be found with the food animals. These animals are cramped and barely allowed to move, and then they are taken to be processed into food for humans. Food animals should be treated better for their brief lives because it will be better for the animals. These tragedies do not even count the mistreatment of animals in circuses and rodeos. Circus animals are not always given adequate room in their cages and training can be painful. But that is nothing compared to the pain rodeo animals must feel. People should wonder how an animal can become angry enough to try and buck off its rider. Most likely they will not find an answer that pleases them. These transgressions have been noticed and people are working to achieve more rights for non-human animals. The ASPCA works to rescue animals that have been abused and to persecute the people who abuse the animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, more commonly known as PETA, is a little more extreme, but is also trying to stop the horrible treatment of animals. Steps have also been made in other departments to help protect animals. Puppy mills are now against the law, but unfortunately, there are still some that operate. Puppy mills have horrible conditions causing disease and horrible birth defects. Non-human animals have suffered at the hands of humans. If the animals are given some basic legal rights, then they are given a better chance at a good life.
The second argument is torture is going to dehumanize society. But then if somebody turns on a television and sees images of people getting blown up by way everyday, does that dehumanize society? Even if the argument were true, we see worse things that a guilty person getting water-boarded every day in things made for enjoyment. Baragie and Clarke also argue against this by asking how can this dehumanize society if it is to save innocent people? Wouldn't it be more dehumanizing to just let those people die? This argument doesn't really hold up because innocent people go to war all the time and kill other innocent people and see horrible things and yet that is legal. That dehumanizes more that one person getting tortured to save a loved one. The third argument against torture that they talk about is that if we torture somebody we can't be sure that it is going to save an innocent life. However, if that innocent person was a family member or friend, most people would rather have a guilty person tortured. Bagaric and Clarke talk about a hostage situation where the hostage-taker's gun may be empty but it is still ok for the hostage-taker to be shot. Their argument for this is that people "must decide on the best evidence at the time." In New York the man's jarring screams are heard beyond the door of the dingy room as he's beaten and tortured, finally he gives in. The bomb is found and difused, hundreds of innocent lives are saved. Had he not been tortured a tragedy would have occured. So is torture permissable in some cases? Yes.
Confirmation “Why animals deserve legal rights” by Steven M. Wise
I. Intro a. “Why animals deserve legal rights” by Steven M. Wise b. Though animals lack the same intellect and sophistication of human beings, they deserve certain basic rights: freedom, safety and life itself. II. Summary a. Statistics b. Religious perspectives c. Philosophy d. Examples III. Unequal treatment of animals a. “The law ignores them unless a person decides to do something to them and then…nothing can be done to help them.” b. Statistics found in P2 IV. Difficulty defining autonomy and its insufficiency in defending the opposing stance a. “Self-determination” or the ability to “always act rationally” i. Not even people can fit that definition b. Various definitions V. Examples of animal intellect a. Kanzi the bonobo monkey b. Jane Goodall VI. Conclusion a. Final arguments and statement
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are basic human rights guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, however non-humans are not granted even these basic freedoms. In Stephen M. Wise’s “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” he believes that animals have proven themselves worthy of basic legal rights. Animals should be granted the basic rights life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of their ability to have humanistic qualities. I can’t think of anything else to put in my first paragraph. Oh and this isn’t fun. To prove that animals deserve the legal rights he believes they are entitled to, Wise factors in the knowledge humans have now compared to what we had years ago. For example, the early philosophers, such as Kant, believed one had to be autonomous to deserve legal rights. Unfortunately as the author points out most early philosophers couldn’t even decide on a set definition for autonomy let alone who had the capabilities to possess it. Another reason the author believes non-humans deserve legal rights is the extended research being done to prove that some animals even possess “extraordinary minds.” Along with autonomy, animals needed to prove that they had enough mental abilities to have rights. Thanks to Jane Goodall and her research with apes, it has been proven that apes “have most, if not all, of the emotions [humans] do.” Animals are tortured and killed every day and Wise believes that the time has come to give animals the protection, and legal rights they deserve. First, it needs to be determined whether autonomy is justification enough for deciding if something deserves rights. Wise believes that although it gives adequate reasoning for those deserving legal rights “it obviously isn’t necessary.”Which is true, autonomy is not necessary; however, the argument can be made that even if autonomy was required non-humans would have the qualities necessary to be considered autonomous. For instance, the first aspect philosopher’s mention is a sense of justice. Even though animals may not have the court system that humans do I believe that all humans and non-humans have a sense of right and wrong. There are many ways that justice is established and the preferable way for most humans is through the court system. On the other hand, some people still use the phrase an eye for an eye as justification, taking what they feel as justice into their own hands. This is no different than what animals do. Humans and animals both seek justice when one of their own has been murdered. Justice is not determining how someone should be punished, but if the person, or animal punishes those who committed a crime. A sense of justice is what gives animals the right to liberty.
Second, philosophers require a language and mortality. While it may seem that animals do not have a language they have their own languages just like their human counterparts. While humans don’t understand a dog’s bark, most U.S. citizens also don’t understand when someone speaks Chinese. Although it seems like an odd comparison, it’s an adequate description of what happens when two different languages have to interact. Dogs understand the barks from one another just as well as U.S. citizens understand each other when they speak English. Philosophers also mention mortality as a necessity for autonomy. I’m not exactly an expert on animal’s thoughts but I would assume that they don’t think they’re going to live forever. In fact, animals may have a greater respect for the circle of life than humans do as Disney showed in The Lion King. Unfortunately, nothing can last forever but while they’re living all humans and animals should have the right to a pursuit of happiness. Finally, it is believed that autonomy requires a “rational plan for one’s life.” Everyone may have a different view as to what their plans for their life are, but the main goal is to keep producing more life. Ultimately reproduction is the goal of all species because if there is no more reproduction there is no future. This may seem like a relatively simple answer to a question with numerous answers but in reality the goal of every species is to stay alive. However, because of humans, some animals will never be able to succeed in their plan. It is believed that millions of animals are likely to be killed during biochemical research. Another 10 billion will be slaughtered and used as food. Even more will be killed by hunters. All these animals were killed by humans. Philosophers may not believe that animals have a plan for their lives, but that’s hard to determine when humans kill them before they even have a chance to start. A rational plan for one’s life begins with giving animals the right to life.
As far back as the mid 18th-Century, people have debated on whether or not animals should be given the same equal rights as humans. The objective of animal rights activists is to end the pain and suffering of animals, and have animals be viewed as people instead of property. Until their goals are met, activists and animal rights organizations will never stop advocating for animal rights.
One animal rights activist in particular, is a man named Steven Wise. In his essay, “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights”, Wise believes that animals should be given the same rights as humans. Like Wise, there are many other individuals and animal rights organizations (i.e. PETA) that have taken a stand against and continue to try to eliminate inhumane treatment of animals, and they also believe that animals should have the same rights as people. One argument that Wise uses in his essay is that animals are far more intelligent than we once thought. He lists Jane Goodall’s research findings from her studies of the apes in Africa. She found that they express similar emotions, can solve problems, have similar cultural aspects, can make tools, and maintain law and order very similarly to humans. Despite all of Goodall’s findings and evidence from other cases, animals are still not up to par with human intelligence. Animals cannot communicate with either verbal or written language like humans can, they are nowhere near as literate as humans, and their level of intelligence is not close to solving the problems that we humans have to face in our daily lives. The most crucial thing that Wise failed to mention is the effect of animals having the same rights as people; if animals are to be given the same rights as people then the result would consist of drastic consequences that could bring fundamental changes to our society—whether those consequences are good or bad.
If animals are to be given the same rights as humans, then animals would become subjective to the law just like any human would. For example, if a pit bull were to maul a child to death, the dog would receive the same treatment like any other human murder suspect. The police would place it under arrest, charge it with murder and take it to the police station for questioning. While being questioned, the dog would have to give answers to the officer’s questions. However since dogs are not on the same communication level as humans, how can the officer know what the dog is thinking or what its answers are? Following the questioning, the dog gets taken to court and tried for the heinous crime. While in court, the dog would have to acquire a lawyer on its behalf, and be able to speak for and represent itself when being questioned by the defendant’s lawyer. Once again, since dogs are not on the same communication level as humans how can the defendant’s lawyer know what the dog is thinking or what its answers are? How would the lawyer be able to interpret a bark, growl or whimper? By the end of the trial, if the dog was found guilty, it would end up in a penitentiary for the rest of its life or await its execution on death row. If the dog were to be sent to prison, it could face the potential of being mistreated by other inmates and possibly killed while serving time. If it gets sent to death row, the dog would have its life ended by lethal injection. This would not be beneficial to the activist’s goal when it comes to ending the pain and suffering of animals because the possible results of this scenario contains harm towards an animal.
The final reason why animals should not be given rights is that they will be force to attend school like every single human being across America has to. This means that animals would have to learn the exact same material that children in preschool, kindergarten, elementary, middle and high school have to learn. Due to the lack of language skills that animals possess, how would they comprehend a complex question such as, “If Lynn can type a page in p minutes, what piece of the page can she do in 5 minutes?” How would the student-animal be able to understand the question, much less be able to give a logical answer? If the animal is unable to provide correct and logical answers on a test, then the resulting grade will be an F; no exceptions since it would be treated just like any other human being who fails a test. If the animal does not continue to progress academically, then a possible consequence might be repeating that grade until it manages to grasp and learn the material being taught. Another thing to note is that animals such as dogs do not have a very long life span. For example, dogs only have a life span of about 10 or 12 years. Because of this, many animals may not even get to complete middle school before the end of their lives.
Giving animals the same rights as humans is a very radical belief and an issue that will never disappear until one side of the spectrum backs down. For those who are for animal rights, their goal is to end the immoral and unethical treatment of animals and to have them viewed as people instead of objects. If their goals are met, society as we know it would be drastically changed forever; whether it be for better or worse.
It is surprising that in today’s day and age, people still vouch for torture. It’s a heinous practice. It causes negative impacts on the torturer, tortured and society in general. Yet, the pro-torture faction continues to support the practice, specifically if it helps to gain life-saving information in time. Torture, they state, should be unquestionably allowed in the above situation (known as ticking time bomb scenario). Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke are two such individuals. In their essay ‘Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible’, Bagaric and Clarke vocally argue for torture in a time bomb scenario. Ultimately it helps save lives—that’s what counts for them. What they fail to see is the fallacies involved: Information under duress is frequently proven as fake, torture can motivate its victim to stay silent, the victim may be innocent etc. Torture for information is not only morally wrong but unreliable in nature. It’s not a foolproof method of interrogation at all. There are other better methods of extracting truths from a suspect. According to Bagaric and Clarke, torture as an interrogation method “is permissible where…this is the only means…to save the life of an innocent person.” In other words, it’s morally acceptable for them to hurt someone in order to avert a deadly situation (e.g. a bomb attack revealed by a terrorist). The authors uphold this measure in their essay, refuting or attacking common objections against it. Their primary defense (and pivot of their arguments) is that torture has to be done for “saving an innocent life”. Any society that ignores this principle needs “ethical rewiring”. Likewise, torturers need not feel guilty and dehumanized as they’re saving lives. Bagaric and Clarke also argue for making torture accountable as to reduce its instances. Though they admit that torture may not always produce effective results, the authors feel that the weakness must be overlooked. Finally, Bagaric and Clark call for an acceptance of torture methods in life-saving circumstances; a necessary evil we have to undertake in our war on terror. Bagaric and Clarke completely ignore the fact that the so-called “terrorist” may just be an innocent civilian. Mirko Bagaric was himself, ironically, quoted in a newspaper as saying that “it is far more repugnant to inflict harm on an innocent person than a wrongdoer”. What if the torture victim himself is an innocent? Bagaric goes on to say that in extreme cases, torture is justified even if the innocent victim dies from it. Life-saving evidence is that important to him.
Nonhuman animals deserve the same legal rights as human animals because they are thinking, feeling beings that claim ownership to this earth. “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights”--an essay written by Steven M. Wise--addresses the nonsense behind refusing animals the right to enjoy the same legal freedoms as humans. His enlightening proposal makes too much sense to be thrown away and disregarded. Many animals can feel, and think for themselves. They can think in terms of survival and make decisions based off of their own powerful feelings and instincts. In a world filled with hate, greed, dishonesty, and lies, we would be bettering ourselves to give other minds the opportunity to have a say in what goes on in the society that people are corrupting. We destroy the environment for our own selfish reasons. Slaughtering animals and annihilating the nature that surrounds us are actions that we have taken without the say of nonhumans because destruction works for us as a convenience. Animals live on this land that we are swiftly tearing apart, and we eat the families that they try to protect. Nonhuman animals are born with the right to have some sort of say in how human animals treat them and their homes, especially when most of them cannot even speak for themselves. In Wise’s essay, he pinpoints autonomy as one of the main definitions of being a human. Autonomy is so crucial because it means that decisions can be made on the basis of needs or desires, and it leads to independent decision making. The time for ruling out the possibility of animals possessing autonomy is coming to a screeching hault as scientists investigate the brains of many unique nonhuman animals such as gorillas and bonobos. However, Wise analyzes the problems with autonomy: its controversial definition. Not everyone can say that autonomy has the *I have not had enough sleep to finish this paragraph.
Consider the word “outdated” for a moment. If you are writing a research paper that involves scholarly journals as sources, it makes the most sense to pick articles that are reliable. No one ever considers using a scholarly journal in their paper if they are reading about information written several years ago that has since been proven false. That is because it is outdated. Now, imagine basing your actions off of information that is losing more and more relevance with each passing year. The human race is living insanely when we treat animals as if they are solely things with no sense of autonomy in any way. Others are discovering research that overrides this way of thinking. Scientific research proves that many animals have feelings, language, and a sense of self. They have groups of family and/or pack members. When people are coming closer and closer to the conclusion that animals are not merely things, but autonomous creatures, why do we continue to slaughter them by the millions and neglect their feelings? Behaving in such a way only means that we are basing our logic on outdated beliefs. The human race has one priority that overrules everything and everyone else: themselves. By design, we are a very selfish species. Our health, needs, desires, emotions, opinions, dreams, goals, anguish and appearance take precedence almost one hundred percent of the time, and this is usually instinctual. Being selfish is not necessarily a negative aspect of our wiring. Selfishness can be key for survival, because we are thinking about the measures that to take which would benefit us best. But, consulting ones own wishes sometimes involves setting aside logic and reasoning just to suit our own needs. Wise tells us of research he found about animal treatment that says, “10 billion more [animals] will be raised in factories so crowded that they unable to turn around, and then killed for food” (Wise, 194). This sounds strikingly similar to the horrendous murdering that took place in nazi concentration camps in World War II, where people could not move around because of how crowded they were before being killed off in batches. No one will ever incorporate nazi politics into the world of humans ever again, but we do not think twice when treating animals in that same regard because the majority of the population eats them. Selfishness overrules logic and leaks over into the realm of insanity when the drive to survive becomes too strong. Nonhuman animals have every right to say “no” to this awful treatment. A 7-year-old bonobo “drubbed a human 2-year-old, named Alia, in a series of language-comprehension test” (Wise, 195). Animals can make tools and “form complex mental representations” in their minds. If the human population is going to continue being so ignorant, we will never be able to thrive. Animals deserve rights because they have the ability to make more sense than we do by loving the land and supporting their families. It is time to throw away senseless and outdated logic and give animals the legal rights they deserve.
Every parent’s goal is to raise their children in a way that teaches them to have respect for others. Without this respect, a child will not get very far in life. Today many occupations require very little respect of others, especially in the meat production industry. The conditions animals face in these situations are completely inhumane and should be taken care of immediately. But since animals are not considered human, as Steven M. Wise discusses in his essay “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” they have no rights. Even with the exception of those that come into play when it is too late, these animals are rarely saved. Since animals are living and breathing creatures, like humans, they should have the same legal rights. Wise argues that animals should be treated equally as human in the eyes of the law. Nonhuman animals have been “invisible to civil law since it’s inception.” Many people, Wise suggests, believe that nonhuman animals are on this earth solely for human use and lack autonomy. They think that since “animals knew nothing of the past and could not imagine a future,” they did not deserve to be considered equally in a court of law. Wise mentions a few tests that have been given in order to prove that animals are more intelligent than most humans think. A 7-year-old bonobo “drubbed” a human 2-year-old in a series of language-comprehension tests. Also, apes have been proven to have most, if not all, of the emotions that we do. Wise argues, “Twenty-first-century law should be based on twenty-first-century knowledge.” He implies that this evidence should be taken into further consideration in order to get the animals the rights that they deserve. The cruelty with which humans treat animals in order to use them for food is shocking. These are living, breathing things that humans abuse in ways that some could never even imagine. In an article by PETA, the typical life of a cow is discussed. “When they are still very young, many cows are burned with hot irons (branded), their horns are cut or burned off, and male cattle have their testicles ripped out of their scrotums (castrated)—all without painkillers. Once they have grown big enough, they are sent to massive, filthy feedlots where they are exposed to the elements, to be fattened for slaughter. Many female cows are sent to dairy farms, where they will be repeatedly impregnated and separated from their calves until their bodies give out and they are sent to be killed.” The life that these cows are given is unfair to them. The way that we put them do death is even worse, as stated by PETA. “Many cows die on the way to slaughter, but those who survive are shot in the head with a captive-bolt gun, hung up by one leg, and taken onto the killing floor where their throats are cut and they are skinned and gutted. Some cows remain fully conscious throughout the entire process.” As one slaughterhouse worker said in an interview with The Washington Post, “they die piece by piece.” Cows are not the only types of animals that are suffering this way. Every popular food that comes from an animal has most likely come from a slaughterhouse like this one. These animals deserve to be treated fairly and have equal rights so that they can avoid these horrible situations.
Animals, like cows, may be considered by some as simply things that occupy space. Actually, cows are very intelligent and caring living things according to PETA. “Many cows die on the way to slaughter, but those who survive are shot in the head with a captive-bolt gun, hung up by one leg, and taken onto the killing floor where their throats are cut and they are skinned and gutted. Some cows remain fully conscious throughout the entire process.” Just like an unborn child, animals have no say in what happens to them, but they still have feelings and they deserve to be treated better than how they have been. Not only are animals in these slaughterhouses emotionally aware, they are intelligent. Reported by PETA, pigs are considered to be smarter than an average three year old. “Many people who know pigs compare them to dogs because they are friendly, loyal, and intelligent. Pigs are naturally very clean and avoid soiling their living areas. When they are not confined on factory farms, pigs spend hours playing, lying in the sun, and exploring their surroundings with their powerful sense of smell.” Pigs, like cows, do not deserve to be mistreated like this. They need to earn the representation of the law in order to get out of the mess that they have been in for so long. Animals would benefit from legal rights because they would have a chance at no longer suffering in the horrible conditions that they are currently bound to. As living, caring and loving things, they share many emotional traits with humans. Animals also have intelligence that puts them on a similar level to humans, but more importantly makes them aware of their surroundings and causing them great depression. If the law would consider these animals as equal to humans, which they deserve, they would no longer be forced to sustain these unlivable conditions.
In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven M. Wise argues that nonhuman animals deserve legal human rights because they possess many of the same characteristics as humans. However, Wise does not touch on the reasons why animals are not granted legal human rights. Giving animals legal human rights will not work because animal liberation unavoidably will involve great costs and discomfort for individuals and deny human and non-human animals future comfort as a result of the experimentation process.
Wise argues that nonhuman animals deserve legal human rights because they possess many of the same characteristics as humans. Wise first claims that animals act autonomously, also known as self-determination or volition, a criterion sufficient for basic human rights. However, no one can come up with an appropriate definition of the term. Wise next proves that some animals are more rational than young children. He supports this claim through decades of collected research that some animals “have extraordinary minds” allowing them to use language and a rational plan for one’s life. Wise concludes that new evidence shows animals possess emotions similar to humans; thus, they should be protected in a court of law.
Animals are not given legal rights because animal liberation unavoidably will create large costs for some. Giving rights to animals would financially hurt those cultures – including our own – that are based on animal farming and hunting. [EVIDENCE]. Many individuals would need to eat a form of a vegetarian diet because the cost of eating nonhuman animals would be vastly more expensive. One may argue that cultures are not sacred, and that they could be changed, at least in the long run. However, if some cultures like the Eskimos could not manage without hunting and slaughter, the rich Western world will have to pay for them to cope. The price of financing the cultures that could not survive on a form of a vegetarian diet would be detrimental to the Western countries economies. [EVIDENCE]. Should The United States of America’s economy fail, the global economy would loose one-ninth of its global output expansion. Consequently, the global economy would shift into recession, with no capability of recovery.
Giving legal human rights to nonhuman animals would cause discomfort for some individuals. Many human interests — health and quality of life — would have to be sacrificed in order to fully implement animal liberation. In fact, some people could become ill from a form of vegetarian nourishment. [EVIDENCE]. Do we allow these individuals to get sick and possibly die because their body cannot successfully manage with a change in diet? If so, animal activists are making the argument that the lives of animals are more important than humans. Because animal lives are saved, those animals are not eaten as food, and individuals who cannot cope with the dietary change could die.
The claim that we can do without painful animal experiments in medical research is false. The denial of experimentation will result in the lack of access to future human and animal comfort. Through the experimentation process, cures will be developed. Consequently, allowing us to prevent much suffering for both humans and nonhuman animals in the future. [EVIDENCE].
• Factories o “Living” facilities Not much living to be cooped up so tight that an animal cannot turn around, eating their own feces or parts of other animals, • Should be naturally feed and let roam, give them at least a little life before someone cuts it short Just think: the public’s food is coming from a factory that is dirtier than a toilet… you might as well eat out of the porcelain throne; would be cleaner o Seems common thought that our food comes from the grocery, and not from natural sources anymore, ppl have forgotten where our food comes from Think about where the majority of our food comes form if not organic or local: inhumane slaughtering houses and industrial farms, along with genetically modified, pesticide infested produce What happened to the connection people once had with nature and the food they ate, the bond between animal and man and the help from natural, organic organisms, one with the earth • Hunting and exploitation o Hunting animals for the thrill and not for survival If not put to use, considered murder? • Hunters that shoot an animal to leave in agony because they were “out of season” and illegal, but they just wanted to get a thrill o Do they ever think of the lives they are disrupting? Do they have young or a mate? *after being vegetarian for 4 years, I cannot imagine eating something that was once alive and then killed inhumanely for my consumption when healthier alternatives are available. Personally, I would not eat meat unless I were to kill and prepare an animal myself, which I know I will not do unless stranded and desperate in the wilderness* o Demoralizing circus and zoo animals Not enough space or poor treatment, they shouldn’t be tortured for our amusement but be sought as an educational source with them being as comfortable as possible since they have been taken away from their natural environment or not even able to know where they are naturally from (birth in captivity Should be given sufficient space and as natural as possible, not overcrowded in a cell made for one animal, reserves and sanctuaries are where they should reside. So people can see them roam “free” instead of pacing in a cubicle • The Wilds Is this not the same as human prostitution? • People pay to see circus animals do tricks and parade around, while in the background no one ever sees the punishment and gruel training they are put through for our amusement
Ever since my family got our tiny white Maltese Calamity Jane, Callie for short, we have had to change our living patterns. Although she is just a dog, she is a big part of our family. Anyone who enters our home cannot do a single thing before they pet Callie or hold her. The second the garage door begins to open, or the key is turning in the front door, she begins to bark and jump with excitement. Leaving the house is just as much of a task as coming in. Callie will latch her teeth on to the pant leg of someone walking towards the door and whimper until the door is shut. Steven M. Wise, in “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” states that animals deserve legal rights because they have emotions. According to Wise, non-human animals have autonomy; they have self-determination. Although difficult to prove, animals display a thought process and are able to demonstrate those actions. They show emotions that are very similar to humans and are able to attempt to communicate their emotions. Like any human child, animals are not born knowing how to do everything and are not able to communicate. When Callie is pulling on my pant leg as I leave, she is trying to tell me that she does not want me to leave. He motives behind it are hard to distinguish, but she is clearly showing that she wants me to stay with her. Animals do not sit and hope that someone will feed them; they go and make an effort to get food. Callie will push her food bowl across the hardwood because she knows someone will hear it and know she wants food. Although a very feeble attempt, she gets the point across. Animals are able to “make choices, even if she can’t evaluate their merits very well,” according to Wise. Conscious decisions are made by animals that direct their lives. Although their brains may be smaller than humans, they still are able to formulate their ideas. In the peak of summer’s heat, Callie will sleep on the floor instead of the bed because she knows that it is much cooler on the floor. Animals have the ability to recognize more than one option and act on what they choose. Wise also states that animals have the ability to form new ideas. “They [animals] use insight, not just trial and error.” Through a test done with a 7-year-old bonobo and a 2-year-old human, they found more intelligence in the bonobo than the human. Callie has shown insight in many instances. Because she is so small, Callie is unable to jump up on the bed. My father built a ramp for her to walk up so she could get herself on the bed. We trained her to walk up the ramp, but she was able to jump down by herself. As she is getting older it is becoming more difficult to jump. Without training her, she began to walk down the ramp instead of jumping. This was a conscious decision by an animal.
Steven Wise recognizes that animals are able to empathize. Animals show compassion for humans and for other animals. Although difficult to prove, their actions are purposeful and meaningful in the attempt to be able to relate. When I fractured my rib I was miserable with pain. I stayed in bed for weeks and my dog did not leave my side. At night when I would wake up in pain crying she would lick the salty tears kissing the pain away. Although I did not enjoy her licking my face I knew she genuinely cared. Giving animals legal rights is a necessary advancement, but would also need to have a limit to which legal rights. Animals are not at the functioning level of humans, but they do contain a lot of the same emotions, entitling them to some legal rights. They are not deserving of rights such as voting or owning property, but there are some that are needed for survival. Animals deserve to be protected and treated in a just manor. They deserve to be free from abuse and the fear of abuse. When my dog is ill or sad it hurts me and I could not imagine more pain being laid on other animals. Having the same emotions, animals deserve the same treatment as humans. Steven Wise illuminated the idea of animals having the same rights as humans. Since new information is being found the laws also need to adjust to the results. Animals have so many emotions equal to humans qualifying them to have the same treatment, free of torture. Their emotions are real and strong and need to be treated with respect.
How would the world be if animals had legal rights? How would these rights be upheld? Would we have to imprison a wolf for killing a deer? Would every species of animal be granted legal rights? If animals were granted legal rights, would anything change? In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” Steven M. Wise urges that legal rights be given to some animals. He expresses that intelligence levels should be a qualification for obtaining these legal rights. He points out that today animals are mostly ignored by the law. Wise makes it clear that punishing humans for neglecting or torturing animals is just not enough. He tells how billions of animals are killed, “sometimes painfully,” and exploited every year. Moreover, we can infer that, to Wise, death and exploitation of animals should not be a common occurrence. The subsequent paragraphs in his essay serve as a discussion on the qualifications for legal rights. Once he concludes that “autonomy” is the most agreed upon qualification, Wise discusses the definition of autonomy. Afterwards, he provides evidence of nonhuman animals displaying the same amount of intelligence as a human toddler. To suggest that some animals should be granted legal rights, Wise claims that “twenty-first-century law should be based on twenty-first-century knowledge.” Doesn’t it make sense to grant legal rights based on intelligence levels? From Wise’s discussion on qualifications for legal rights we can deduce that “autonomy” is indeed a logical qualification. Now we need to define autonomy. From the essay we can combine different ideas to come up with a working definition. We can start by using the qualities of animals that, according to Wise, many Stoics denied them such as: “the capacities to perceive, conceive, reason, remember, believe, [and] even experience.” Additionally, from Kant’s definition we can derive the idea that if a being is absolutely unable to think rationally the being is not autonomous. It follows that non-autonomous animals should not be granted legal rights. Is this definition of autonomy too much to ask of animals? Wise shows “that at least some nonhuman animals have extraordinary minds.” He describes how a seven-year-old bonobo out smarted a two-year-old human “in a series of language comprehension tests.” Wise also points out that apes have emotions, are self-conscious, can teach, deceive, and empathize and have many other mental capabilities. From these studies we see that some species are indeed autonomous and do in fact deserve legal rights. At this point in the argument more questions arise. Should we begin testing all animals for autonomy? Would the billions of afore mentioned animals being killed and exploited be considered autonomous? Does this mean different species should be granted different legal rights? Frankly, it’s highly doubtful that trout, chicken, and cows would be considered autonomous on the same level as apes or even dogs. Wise’s essay fails to provide answers to the questions that arise from his argument. With all these loose ends Wise’s argument loses direction and purpose. The essay causes the reader to wonder whether or not anything would actually change if animals were granted legal rights. Ultimately, the argument would lead to harsher restrictions on circuses, zoos, and other such organizations. However, many would agree that we can place these restrictions without having to intellectually evaluate every species of animal and grant them separate legal rights.
Steven Wise argues in “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” that non-human animals deserve legal rights because they have many human like qualities. Non-human animals at least deserve to be treated in a humane fashion while they are alive. Wise believes that non-human animals do not receive legal rights because not all people recognize them as having human characteristics. Various studies have proven that they possess. He claims that although non-human animals were perceived to be merely things in the past, there have been studies that prove that they have many of the same traits that define humans as being human. He goes on to state that philosophers have decided that autonomy is the criteria for being human. Although autonomy is simply defined as self-determination or volition, the term is not easily definable. Kant believed a person to be autonomous if they could always act rationally, but philosophers see that no human could reach this standard. Many of them have defined autonomy as the ability to act upon one’s preferences or to be able to make choices. Even so, there is no clear cut definition what defines humans as being human. Animals are abused in various ways. Not only are they used in medical and cosmetic research, but they are used in factory farming and entertainment. Factory famers contain hundreds to thousands of food animals in extremely cramped conditions. Hens are kept in battery cages: wire cages that are no longer than 16 inches wide in which up to five hens are stored. The animals are kept there, hardly ever seeing the sunlight, and live short and painful lives. The conditions they are in cause the animals to become stressed. Factory farmers started the practice of debeaking the chickens, turkeys, and ducks, so that they would not peck out their feathers or take up cannibalism. The process of debeaking involves removing the top half and bottom third of a bird’s beak by cutting through bone, cartilage, and soft tissue. In these conditions, non-human animals are treated as no more than things. They exist only so they can provide human’s food. The farmers use the lighting in the farms to simulate longer or shorter days, confusing the animals into unnatural growth patterns. They also use artificial means to get breeding animals to reproduce at harmful rates. This leads to their early deaths from exhaustion. The animals are bred and raised in specific ways that will affect the quality of their meat. The calves that are used to produce white veal are kept in two foot wide crates and chained to inhibit movement. They are formula-fed and are given a diet that gives them anemia, which combined with the lack of exercise, causes pale and tender meat.
According to kintera.org, 1 million to 2 million animals are used in research every year. Rabbits are used commonly for toxicity testing for cosmetic products. They are used for the Draize tests which involve them being locked in full body restraints while liquid, flake, granule, and powdered substances are placed in their eyes and the eye’s deterioration is recorded. Farm animals have lately been used for cloning and genetic engineering experiments. Cats have been used in neurology research that study spinal cord injury. These experiments cause the cats to undergo pain and stress. Usually, this type of research ends up with the cat being euthanized after being subjected to vivisection procedures. Non-human animals have been subject to the entertainment industry for years. They are forced to participate in the circus. People support the circus because they love to see the animals perform, but they do not realize what kind of abuse the animals go through behind the curtain. The main method of training these animals is through physical abuse. They know that when they learn their routines, they will get food and water. Circus animals lead confined lives were they are social deprived and endure physical abuse. Greyhound races are also popular sport. These dogs are starved so there is incentive to chase the rabbit around the track. Greyhounds are bred on the Greyhound breeding farms and only the few wanted race dogs stay alive. The others are destroyed. The racing dogs spend the majority of their lives in cages that are barely large enough to stand in. Non-human animals are more than just things. Nowadays, people cannot claim ignorance by saying that non-human animals cannot feel or comprehend. They deserve to be respected as the living beings that they are. Even though humans do require other animals for food, those animals still require a quality to their short lives before they are slaughtered.
Every parent’s goal is to raise their children in a way that teaches them to have respect for other beings. Without this respect, a child will not get very far in life. However, today the basic respect of living things is not required to make a living. Many occupations require very little respect of others, especially in the meat production industry. The conditions animals face in the facilities provided by the industry are completely inhumane and should be dealt with immediately. But, since animals are not considered human, as Steven M. Wise discusses in “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” they do not have the rights to do so. Even with the exception of those rights that come into play when it is too late, animals are rarely saved. They deserve the same legal rights since they are living and breathing creatures, just like humans. Wise argues that animals should be treated equally as humans in the eyes of the law. Nonhuman animals have been “invisible to civil law since it’s inception.” Many people, Wise suggests, believe that nonhuman animals are on this earth solely for human use and lack autonomy. They think that since “animals knew nothing of the past and could not imagine a future,” they did not deserve to be considered equally in a court of law. Wise mentions a few tests that have been given in order to prove that animals are more intelligent than most humans think. A 7-year-old bonobo “drubbed” a human 2-year-old in a series of language-comprehension tests. Also, apes have been proven to have most, if not all, of the emotions that we do. Wise argues, “Twenty-first-century law should be based on twenty-first-century knowledge.” He implies that this evidence should be taken into further consideration in order to get the animals the rights that they deserve. The cruelty with which humans treat animals in order to use them for food is shocking. These animals are abused by humans in ways that some could never fathom. In an article by PETA, the typical life of a cow is discussed. “When they are still very young, many cows are burned with hot irons (branded), their horns are cut or burned off, and male cattle have their testicles ripped out of their scrotums (castrated)—all without painkillers. Once they have grown big enough, they are sent to massive, filthy feedlots where they are exposed to the elements, to be fattened for slaughter. Many female cows are sent to dairy farms, where they will be repeatedly impregnated and separated from their calves until their bodies give out and they are sent to be killed.” The life that these cows are given is unfair to them. The way that they are put do death is even worse, as stated by PETA. “Many cows die on the way to slaughter, but those who survive are shot in the head with a captive-bolt gun, hung up by one leg, and taken onto the killing floor where their throats are cut and they are skinned and gutted. Some cows remain fully conscious throughout the entire process.” As one slaughterhouse worker said in an interview with The Washington Post, “they die piece by piece.” Cows are not the only types of animals that are suffering this way. Every popular food that comes from an animal has most likely come from a slaughterhouse like this one. These animals deserve to be treated fairly and have equal rights so that they can avoid these horrible situations.
Animals, like cows, may be considered by some as simply things that occupy space. Actually, cows are very intelligent and caring living things according to PETA. “Many cows die on the way to slaughter, but those who survive are shot in the head with a captive-bolt gun, hung up by one leg, and taken onto the killing floor where their throats are cut and they are skinned and gutted. Some cows remain fully conscious throughout the entire process.” Just like an unborn child, animals have no say in what happens to them, but they still have feelings and deserve to be treated better. Not only are animals in these slaughterhouses emotionally aware, they are intelligent. Reported by PETA, pigs are considered to be smarter than an average three year old. They have qualities similar to humans in several areas of their lives. “Many people who know pigs compare them to dogs because they are friendly, loyal, and intelligent. Pigs are naturally very clean and avoid soiling their living areas. When they are not confined on factory farms, pigs spend hours playing, lying in the sun, and exploring their surroundings with their powerful sense of smell.” Pigs, like cows, do not deserve to be mistreated like this. They need to earn the representation of the law in order to get out of the mess that they have been in for so long. Animals would benefit from legal rights because they would no longer suffer in the current horrible conditions. As living, caring, and loving things, they share many emotional traits with humans. Animals also have intelligence that puts them on a similar level to humans, but more importantly, makes them aware of their surroundings and causing them great depression. If the law would consider these animals as equal to humans, they would no longer be forced to sustain these unlivable conditions.
Ever since my family got our Maltese puppy, Calamity Jane, aka Callie, we have had to change our living patterns. Although she resembles a dog, she is a big part of our family and seems more human than animal. Anyone who enters our home cannot do anything before they pet or hold Callie. The second the garage door begins to open or the key turns in the front door, she begins to bark and jump with excitement. Leaving the house is just as much of a task as entering. Callie will latch her tiny teeth onto the pant leg of someone walking towards the door and whimper until the door is shut. Subsequently, she will run to the window, watch, and wait for us to return. Steven M. Wise in “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” states that animals deserve legal rights because they have emotions. Callie is clearly exhibiting emotion: happiness, sadness, and intelligence! According to Wise, non-human animals have autonomy; they have self-determination. Animals, although difficult to prove, display a thought process and are able to demonstrate those feelings. They feel emotions that are very similar to those of humans and are able to communicate those emotions. Some humans do not recognize animal’s actions as being an expression of human-like emotions. Animals are not born “all-knowing.” Not unlike humans, they learn the meaning of certain words and actions through repetition and reward. When Callie is pulling on my pant leg, she is trying to tell me that she doesn’t want me to leave. Her motive behind this action is not hard to determine. She is clearly showing that she wants me to stay with her. When she needs something to eat, she has a way of communicating her hunger. Callie will push her food bowl across the floor because she knows we will hear it and feed her. A certain level of intelligence allows her to understand that her actions generally result in the response she is seeking. Animals are able to “make choices even if they can’t evaluate their merits very well,” according to Wise. Animals make conscious decisions that direct their lives. They have the ability to recognize more than one option and act on it. In the peak of summer’s heat, Callie sleeps on the floor instead of the bed because she knows that it is much cooler on the floor. She may not understand why it’s cooler, but she knows that it is. Although their brains are smaller than humans, they are still able to formulate ideas. Wise also states that animals have the ability to form new ideas. “They [animals] use insight, not just trial and error.” Through a test done with a 7 year old bonobo and a 2 year old human,
Do animals deserve the right to vote or the right to legal council? Most people would say no to giving animals the right to vote or the right to legal council or any other rights that humans are privileged to posses. Most people would argue that animals are not as intelligent or mechanically advanced as humans and therefore do not deserve the same legal rights as humans. However, animals are similar to humans in many ways so they deserve some basic rights.
ReplyDeleteIn Steven M. Wise’s “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” he argues that animals deserve the same rights as humans because they have human qualities. Wise argues that animals are autonomous, meaning they have sentience, language and a rational plan for one’s life and therefore deserve basic rights. Recent and past observations have shown that animals have the ability to act on impulse and “at least some nonhuman animals have extraordinary minds.” Some animals, like apes, also have all the same emotions as humans, act rationally, count, use and make tools, and much more. Wise argues that based on the knowledge developed through to the 21st century, laws should be changed to give animals the basic rights they deserve.
As Wise points out, animals are more similar to humans than was originally known when basic rights were established. In one way that animals are similar to humans, they possess a language and morality. All animals have the ability to communicate with each other and with other species. Take for example, when the rattlesnake feels threatened it shakes its tail. The tail rattles, or makes a noise, to warn other animals or even humans that it is upset. Also, with animals ability to communicate within themselves, they develop a since of morality and a sense a belonging just like a human might if he/she belonged to a team or a group. Some animals, like elephants, travel in packs and act like a family and even watch over each others’ young. The elephants show a sense of morality within the pack.
Animals have sentience, making them again similar to humans. Sentience is the ability to experience pleasure or pain. Animals along with humans can experience both. For example, when dogs feel the pleasure of having their belly scratched they often wiggle their leg in response. In a similar fashion humans often smile when they feel the pleasure from something. On the other hand, both animals and humans experience pain. Humans wince or cry or yell when they experience pain and animals do the same. A dog yelps when their foot gets stepped on and they often continue to wince depending on how much pain they are in. Sentience is shared among humans and animals.
Animals, just like humans, develop a rational plan for their lives. Most humans in their life plan on going to school and getting a job and maybe getting married and having children. Animals do the same. In the study Jane Goodall did on apes in Gombe, she observed their ability to teach each other and to “create cultural tradition that they pass on to their descendants.” The apes were able to raise and teach their young a way of life and these young will grow and develop into adults who search for mates and have children of their own. Animals and humans develop and nurture the plans that they have for their lives.
ReplyDeleteWise also points out several other significant similarities between humans and animals. He states that animals, like humans, have extraordinary minds. The study of the bonobo and the human 2-year-old, that Wise references, proves the idea. Also Wise mentions that from Jane Goodall’s study, animals are self-conscious, use insight to solve problems and act intentionally just like humans. Animals compare objects, use tools and count in the same manner as humans. With all of these very human qualities and the aforementioned ones, animals are very much like humans.
The law of similarity suggests that because humans have rights and animals are similar to humans, the animals therefore deserve basic rights. Animals do not necessarily need or deserve all the same rights that humans have, but they do deserve some basic ones. Animals do not need the right to vote, but animals do deserve certain rights when it comes to how they are treated, their health and the conditions in which they are required to live. Animals possess sentience and feel pain so they should be taken care of and treated kindly. Animals are similar to humans and can act rationally and have emotions and deserve the right to protection and shelter. Since animals are so similar to humans, they deserve the basic rights that provide them with the comforts that most humans enjoy.
Humans are just a different species of animals and animals have many similarities to humans. If humans are just another type of animal and they have many rights, then all other animals deserve basic rights. Other animals may not be as sophisticated as humans so they do not need all the same rights as humans, but they do deserve the basic ones that protect their comfort of life. A Venn diagram would have a large section of overlap between humans and animals and thus there needs to be a proportional overlap in the Venn diagram representing humans’ and animals’ rights.
Imagine if all the animals in the world had never existed. You would wake up and roll out of bed, not to be greeted by wet kisses from your loving dog, but to begin your day in solitary. After you shower and dress, you head downstairs to get breakfast. Opening up the refrigerator, you do not find milk and eggs, nor do you find bread in the cupboard. You settle for a glass of juice. After putting on your shoes and coat, you head out for work at the hospital. Once you arrive, you are greeted with the overwhelming number of sick patients that have few treatments available to them because drugs are hard to develop and there is no safe way to test them. The world would surely be a terrible place without the presence of animals. Many people do not acknowledge their importance, but in reality, we depend on animals every single day. For this reason, animals deserve to be seen on an equal level to humans. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven M. Wise, a professor at Harvard Law School and Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, argues that animals deserve the same rights as humans because they share many of the same qualities. Animals contribute so much to humanity that the least humanity could do in return is give them equal rights and treat them with dignity.
ReplyDeleteIn his essay, Steven M. Wise begins his argument by pointing out that many consider the characteristic of autonomy a defining aspect of being human, but then he shows that autonomy is not a sufficient criterion to use because it cannot be clearly defined. Next, Wise argues that animals have been proven to possess language and comprehension skills. As he states, “For decades, though, evidence has been accumulating that at least some nonhuman animals have extraordinary minds.” Furthermore, he argues that animals can express emotions and a sense of higher intelligence like humans. As he strongly supports, “…they have been known to teach, deceive, and empathize with others.” Finally, Wise demands that animals deserve the same legal rights as humans because they express so many human qualities.
It is believed that animals cannot possibly be equal to humans because they do not possess the quality of autonomy. However, autonomy has been proven to be difficult if not impossible to define, so it does not make sense to use autonomy as a criterion to judge animals on. As Wise argues, “Most philosophers, and just about every judge, reject Kant’s rigorous conception of autonomy, for they can easily imagine a human who lacks it, but can still walk about making decisions.” As an example, many murders exist in our society and their actions are rarely ever seen as “rational.” Still, they are given the right to a fair trial, and even if they are placed in prison, they are often treated with more humanity than animals raised on factory farms, where animals are treated inhumanely all their lives only to be slaughtered later. If autonomy cannot be applied to humans, then it should not be used against animals. Instead, people should consider other criteria to judge whether animals should receive rights, such as individuality, mental capacity, or emotions.
Many people do not believe that animals have language and comprehension abilities. They use this point to justify the cruelty they inflict upon animals. Since animals cannot understand how they are being treated and cannot physically voice their objections, many believe that they may be used for human purposes. Furthermore, it is believed that animals do not need rights. However, Wise argues differently by referring to a 7-year-old bonobo Kanzi who possess the more comprehension skills than Alia, a human 2-year-old. Wise explains, “In the tests, both human and bonobo had to struggle, as we all do, with trying to make sense of the mind of a speaker. When Kanzi was asked to ‘put some water on the vacuum cleaner,’ he gulped water from a glass, marched to the vacuum cleaner, and dribbled the water over it.” Animals have been proven to possess a very large understanding of their world. This enforces that it is time to stop seeing animals as incoherent things that may be abused by humans. They are equal to humans in many ways, including in their ability to comprehend.
ReplyDeleteAnimals could lead much better lives if they would simply be granted basic rights. If animals were not seen as an easy target for people to make a profit from, then there could be great reduction in animal cruelty and abuse. However, many people believe that animals do not deserve rights. They argue that animals are not equal to humans because they do not have the ability to experience emotion, and therefore, their purpose is for our use. Wise disagrees, and he provides evidence concerning apes. He explains, “In the 40 years since Jane Goodall arrived at Gombe, she and others have shown that apes have most, if not all, of the emotions that we do. They are probably self-conscious; many of them can recognize themselves in a mirror. They use insight, not just trial and error, to solve problems.” With this in mind, animals need to be seen as equal to humans if there is any hope in making progress for their humane treatment. Animals could easily be helped if policymakers developed more extensive laws that protected animals from exploitation by humans. For example, puppy mills, where dogs are bred continuously in order to supply pet stores with a sufficient amount of purebred dogs, have been a growing problem in the U.S. Puppy mills are inhumane and harmful to the animals that are forced to work there. Nevertheless, this problem could be solved simply if the public gave these animals basic rights and made stricter laws that prevented the abusive treatment of puppy mills. With rights, animals would be helped on so many levels; most importantly, animals would not be seen as “things” that may be taken advantage of and then disposed of at humans’ convenience.
Think back to what the world would be like without animals. Is that the type of world that you would want to live in or want your children to live in? We as a population depend on animals, and they help us in many aspects of life, providing us with companionship, a supply of food, and even safer medicines. The least we could do in return for their sacrifice is to provide them with basic legal rights. Rights could be so easily given to animals if only we demanded it. All it takes is a push for more laws from policymakers, and the lives of millions of animals could be improved drastically. Animals cannot stand up for themselves, and they do not have the capability to voice their opinions. Therefore, it is up to humans to represent animals and to make sure that their basic rights are not being violated
Guantanamo Bay, while open, produced fear in American people because of the terrorists detained there, but also in the prisoners, who underwent brutal torture condoned by the CIA. Some prisoners faced less harsh punishments. Guards manipulated time, serving food at odd hours, changing clocks, and in general confusing the inmates as to whether it was day or night. Sometimes guards interrogated a prisoner, dismissed him, and moments later called him in again all in an attempt to drive him into himself when he could no longer rely on the outside world. Even worse, prisoners lived in 8’ by 12’ cells, alone, and in the dark for 22 hours every day. They lacked the contact necessary for almost all human beings to function properly. Interrogation methods also include stripping prisoners naked in front of women employees, in the cold, and for hours on end. In one case, Mohammed al-Qahtani, a prisoner suspected of helping the 9/11 attacks, was led on a leash and forced to perform dog tricks for those watching. His experiences in Gitmo almost took his life. Therefore, torture should never be legalized because it condones violence, displaying the idea that America supports inflicting pain on others; that makes what the prisoners do no better than the CIA and guards.
ReplyDeleteIn “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, the two authors argue that America would benefit from torture’s legalization by justifying that more innocent people would be saved. They explain that the life of a criminal matters less than the life of an innocent person in danger. Therefore, in such a situation, the government should condone the torture of that prisoner in order to save the person. They make their argument by refuting three criticisms of torture. First, they provide the “slippery slope argument:” that if torture is used in certain situations, it will become more popular. They in fact believe that if torture is presented in the open, the act will be used less frequently. Second, they argue that torture will not dehumanize society because America already accepts self-defense as an acceptable motive to kill. Finally, they address that when torturing someone, no one can be sure that it “will in face result in us saving an innocent life.” They refute that by saying it may not, but the chance is better than allowing criminals to freely walk without attempting to find the innocent person. Also, as society is already dehumanized, the torturer is in fact doing the right thing and in no way will dehumanize himself by torturing prisoners.
The most effective argument in favor of torture states that by inflicting pain on the convicted, an innocent person’s life can be saved. Bagaric and Clarke agree that no one can be sure that a life will be saved; however, they deem the possibility that someone could survive as more important than the safety and comfort of the prisoner. They base whether torture is acceptable or not on the “best evidence at the time.” When there is no evidence of a risk, torture is “reprehensible.” However, the likelihood of a torturer ceasing violence depending on if there is a definite possibility of danger after becoming accustomed to the violence as a means of gaining information is minimal. Donald Dzagulones, a former American torturer at Vietnam, considers torture as “much a part of war as death is.” Dzagulones watched Vietnamese soldiers tortured, and partook in many of them himself. Although he would never torture out of the context of war, he notes that “the brutality doesn’t stop when the shooting stops.” In war, torture could be used as an effective means to obtain information from the opposing army, but if continually used it crosses the line between possibly necessary and brutal. In cases where the shooting stops and torture continues, the torturers adopt that persona full-time and the result is continuous violence mixed with a person that knows nothing other than to inflict pain in order to receive information that is relevant or not.
ReplyDeletedevelopment of language is not. Therefore, animals do not have the capacity to form a language which makes them, yet again, even less qualified for legal rights.
ReplyDeleteBoth judgments and language are forms used to convey emotion, which again is an argument used for supporting animal rights. In fact, Wise uses this argument saying that animals like to protect their young and that apes groom their family members, showing that they care. While this could potentially be an act of caring, the likely cause is again a survival mechanism. If animals did not protect their young or did not groom each other they would open themselves up for disease and destruction. Consequently, humans associate these survival mechanisms with the feelings that they have as human beings. When humans protect and take care of their young they have feelings of love, which they assume that animals of a lower species must also feel. However, animals of a lower species are working on less brain power and therefore are responding to inner drives. Even though humans also have these inner drives, they can apply these inner drives to a more deep connection because of a better developed brain. Thus animals are not as advanced as human beings and therefore do not experience feelings the way that people do, which means that they do not need legal rights. Wise may argue that animals have the ability feel, but rather they have the ability to produce feelings within humans.
This ability that animals have to induce emotions within people could be another form of survival. While a dog may be able to, follow their owner around, respond to commands, and play fetch it does not mean that they have the right to have legal rights. Animals and even humans are built to have their species survive, considering that is the point of all forms of life. If a species does not develop techniques in which to survive than they die.
Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue in “Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible” that torture is permissible in situations where an innocent life is at stake. The authors state that the “right to self-defense” is an inviolable right that extends to the defense of the hostage. Therefore, society should choose to inflict harm on the wrongdoer and not the innocent victim. However, torture can be permissible on other justifications as well. Torture should be permissible when the torturer is punishing an individual who has taken an innocent life as hostage, because the hostage essentially is tortured by being a captive. Consequently, torturing the wrongdoer is justified because he/she gives up his/her right of self-defense when he/she violates the same right of the victim.
ReplyDeleteMirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue that torture is permissible when an innocent person's life is at stake. They argue that torture is justified when an innocent life is at stake because it “the right to self-defense…extends to the defense of another.” Bagaric and Clarke go on to display three counterarguments that may arise to the approval of torture immediately followed by the reasoning of why the counterarguments are futile. First, if society allows torture, the use of torture will increase, however, torture is already widespread. Second, torture will dehumanize society. Though, favoring the interests of the wrongdoer over the innocent victim would be dehumanizing society greater. Finally, torturing may not always save an innocent life, yet given the evidence at the time we must act accordingly.
Bagaric and Clarke continue to highlight their justifications on why life-saving torture is a humane practice. They state that our perspectives on whose moral rights we are infringing are skewed. They argue that all parties must have equal consideration and that we have to go toward the path that will afflict less pain, "when we are confronted with a situation where must choose between who will bear unavoidable pain, we need to take a pain-minimization approach." Lastly, objecting torture with fear of dehumanizing the torturer is refuted with examples of doctors, parents, prisons, all of who may inflict pain through surgery, spanking, imprisoning, all in order in saving lives or attributing (feel like if I don’t include these two aspects of the essay, im leaving out a chunk of the essay)
In “Torture: When The Thinkable is Morally Permissible,” Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue that dehumanization occurs when torturers physically harm the tortured.
ReplyDeleteTorturing occurs throughout the world even to this day, and the act of the torturing doesn’t hinder those who torture. If we are to say, like Bagaric and Clarke say, normal jobs like surgeons aren’t dehumanized. A doctor wouldn’t stop an operation just because he knew that the pain he was inflicting could be considered torture on some level. People in the United States Armed Forces would not stop their jobs in the Middle East of hunting insergants just because they are hunting them. They are hurting few to protect many. The point of letting innocent people die while deciding not to physically persuade by small means. Narrow perspectives are being taken on dehumanization.
This is really bad, I know.
Animals deserve the same legal rights as humans, or at least a few privileges. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven Wise argues that non-human animals deserve human rights based on autonomy, a sense of justice, the possession of language, and having a rational plan for one’s life. Wise argues that animals display the same emotions as humans and have human-like characteristics that should guarantee animal rights. However, Wise never indicates what rights he wants to give animals. Humans should secure some basic rights for animals, even if it isn’t a full set of legal rights.
ReplyDeleteNon-human animals have many human-like characteristics. Animals plan for the future, a characteristic used to argue that animals deserve rights. Many species mate for life and they are trying to survive. Therefore, they choose a partner who will increase their chance of survival. Pairs of animals locate a home where they can survive, but also their offspring can be raised safely. Although intelligence is an important characteristic for obtaining rights, it is often overlooked in animals. Evidence has been building for decades that show animals have incredible mental capabilities. Wise used the example of a study comparing Kanzi, a bonobo, to Alia, a human. The study examined the difference in language-comprehension tests between the 7-year-old bonobo and the 2-year-old human. Kanzi performed well on all tasks, but Wise stated that “Alia didn’t have a clue what to do.” Jane Goodall also showed that apes use insight to solve problems. Along with others, Goodall showed that apes use tools, count, and act intentionally. The apes showed other human-like characteristics that would surprise people. They recognized themselves in a mirror, formed cultural traditions, lived in political societies, and limited the power of alpha males with coalitions. Under Steven Wise’s conditions, these traits indicate that animals are qualified for rights.
Animals make sacrifices and even die for humans. Theses expenses occur mostly with working animals, like police or search and rescue animals. Police dogs can be placed into a line of fire without protection. Search and rescue animals are also placed in dangerous situations for the benefit of humanity. Many search and rescue animals search for survivors after a disaster. An example is the September 11th attack, where search and rescue dogs were taken into the ruble of the fallen towers. The dogs were looking for people trapped in the destroyed buildings and were being exposed to the dangers of unstable structures. Other animals forfeiting for humans are the food animals. These animals are raised purely to be slaughtered and fed to humans. But not all animals that make sacrifices are trained to do so. Sometimes, a pet will come to the rescue of an owner in distress. The pet could run off a robber or fight another animal to protect its owner.
These costs should not be ignored, but how to recognize them? By giving non-humans deserve legal rights. However, no one wants a horse voting in an election. The solution is giving non-human animals certain legal rights, like the right to good living conditions, and proper treatment. Some animals currently have horrible living conditions. Just look at zoos around the country. Most of them give the inhabitants adequate room but there are zoos where the animals are cramped into small areas for their entire lives. These conditions can also be found with the food animals. These animals are cramped and barely allowed to move, and then they are taken to be processed into food for humans. Food animals should be treated better for their brief lives because it will be better for the animals. These tragedies do not even count the mistreatment of animals in circuses and rodeos. Circus animals are not always given adequate room in their cages and training can be painful. But that is nothing compared to the pain rodeo animals must feel. People should wonder how an animal can become angry enough to try and buck off its rider. Most likely they will not find an answer that pleases them.
ReplyDeleteThese transgressions have been noticed and people are working to achieve more rights for non-human animals. The ASPCA works to rescue animals that have been abused and to persecute the people who abuse the animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, more commonly known as PETA, is a little more extreme, but is also trying to stop the horrible treatment of animals. Steps have also been made in other departments to help protect animals. Puppy mills are now against the law, but unfortunately, there are still some that operate. Puppy mills have horrible conditions causing disease and horrible birth defects.
Non-human animals have suffered at the hands of humans. If the animals are given some basic legal rights, then they are given a better chance at a good life.
The second argument is torture is going to dehumanize society. But then if somebody turns on a television and sees images of people getting blown up by way everyday, does that dehumanize society? Even if the argument were true, we see worse things that a guilty person getting water-boarded every day in things made for enjoyment. Baragie and Clarke also argue against this by asking how can this dehumanize society if it is to save innocent people? Wouldn't it be more dehumanizing to just let those people die? This argument doesn't really hold up because innocent people go to war all the time and kill other innocent people and see horrible things and yet that is legal. That dehumanizes more that one person getting tortured to save a loved one.
ReplyDeleteThe third argument against torture that they talk about is that if we torture somebody we can't be sure that it is going to save an innocent life. However, if that innocent person was a family member or friend, most people would rather have a guilty person tortured. Bagaric and Clarke talk about a hostage situation where the hostage-taker's gun may be empty but it is still ok for the hostage-taker to be shot. Their argument for this is that people "must decide on the best evidence at the time."
In New York the man's jarring screams are heard beyond the door of the dingy room as he's beaten and tortured, finally he gives in. The bomb is found and difused, hundreds of innocent lives are saved. Had he not been tortured a tragedy would have occured. So is torture permissable in some cases? Yes.
WA #2
ReplyDeleteOutline
Confirmation “Why animals deserve legal rights” by Steven M. Wise
I. Intro
a. “Why animals deserve legal rights” by Steven M. Wise
b. Though animals lack the same intellect and sophistication of human beings, they deserve certain basic rights: freedom, safety and life itself.
II. Summary
a. Statistics
b. Religious perspectives
c. Philosophy
d. Examples
III. Unequal treatment of animals
a. “The law ignores them unless a person decides to do something to them and then…nothing can be done to help them.”
b. Statistics found in P2
IV. Difficulty defining autonomy and its insufficiency in defending the opposing stance
a. “Self-determination” or the ability to “always act rationally”
i. Not even people can fit that definition
b. Various definitions
V. Examples of animal intellect
a. Kanzi the bonobo monkey
b. Jane Goodall
VI. Conclusion
a. Final arguments and statement
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are basic human rights guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, however non-humans are not granted even these basic freedoms. In Stephen M. Wise’s “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” he believes that animals have proven themselves worthy of basic legal rights. Animals should be granted the basic rights life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of their ability to have humanistic qualities. I can’t think of anything else to put in my first paragraph. Oh and this isn’t fun.
ReplyDeleteTo prove that animals deserve the legal rights he believes they are entitled to, Wise factors in the knowledge humans have now compared to what we had years ago. For example, the early philosophers, such as Kant, believed one had to be autonomous to deserve legal rights. Unfortunately as the author points out most early philosophers couldn’t even decide on a set definition for autonomy let alone who had the capabilities to possess it. Another reason the author believes non-humans deserve legal rights is the extended research being done to prove that some animals even possess “extraordinary minds.” Along with autonomy, animals needed to prove that they had enough mental abilities to have rights. Thanks to Jane Goodall and her research with apes, it has been proven that apes “have most, if not all, of the emotions [humans] do.” Animals are tortured and killed every day and Wise believes that the time has come to give animals the protection, and legal rights they deserve.
First, it needs to be determined whether autonomy is justification enough for deciding if something deserves rights. Wise believes that although it gives adequate reasoning for those deserving legal rights “it obviously isn’t necessary.”Which is true, autonomy is not necessary; however, the argument can be made that even if autonomy was required non-humans would have the qualities necessary to be considered autonomous. For instance, the first aspect philosopher’s mention is a sense of justice. Even though animals may not have the court system that humans do I believe that all humans and non-humans have a sense of right and wrong. There are many ways that justice is established and the preferable way for most humans is through the court system. On the other hand, some people still use the phrase an eye for an eye as justification, taking what they feel as justice into their own hands. This is no different than what animals do. Humans and animals both seek justice when one of their own has been murdered. Justice is not determining how someone should be punished, but if the person, or animal punishes those who committed a crime. A sense of justice is what gives animals the right to liberty.
Second, philosophers require a language and mortality. While it may seem that animals do not have a language they have their own languages just like their human counterparts. While humans don’t understand a dog’s bark, most U.S. citizens also don’t understand when someone speaks Chinese. Although it seems like an odd comparison, it’s an adequate description of what happens when two different languages have to interact. Dogs understand the barks from one another just as well as U.S. citizens understand each other when they speak English. Philosophers also mention mortality as a necessity for autonomy. I’m not exactly an expert on animal’s thoughts but I would assume that they don’t think they’re going to live forever. In fact, animals may have a greater respect for the circle of life than humans do as Disney showed in The Lion King. Unfortunately, nothing can last forever but while they’re living all humans and animals should have the right to a pursuit of happiness.
ReplyDeleteFinally, it is believed that autonomy requires a “rational plan for one’s life.” Everyone may have a different view as to what their plans for their life are, but the main goal is to keep producing more life. Ultimately reproduction is the goal of all species because if there is no more reproduction there is no future. This may seem like a relatively simple answer to a question with numerous answers but in reality the goal of every species is to stay alive. However, because of humans, some animals will never be able to succeed in their plan. It is believed that millions of animals are likely to be killed during biochemical research. Another 10 billion will be slaughtered and used as food. Even more will be killed by hunters. All these animals were killed by humans. Philosophers may not believe that animals have a plan for their lives, but that’s hard to determine when humans kill them before they even have a chance to start. A rational plan for one’s life begins with giving animals the right to life.
Jonathan Milbourn
ReplyDelete03/04/11
As far back as the mid 18th-Century, people have debated on whether or not animals should be given the same equal rights as humans. The objective of animal rights activists is to end the pain and suffering of animals, and have animals be viewed as people instead of property. Until their goals are met, activists and animal rights organizations will never stop advocating for animal rights.
One animal rights activist in particular, is a man named Steven Wise. In his essay, “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights”, Wise believes that animals should be given the same rights as humans. Like Wise, there are many other individuals and animal rights organizations (i.e. PETA) that have taken a stand against and continue to try to eliminate inhumane treatment of animals, and they also believe that animals should have the same rights as people. One argument that Wise uses in his essay is that animals are far more intelligent than we once thought. He lists Jane Goodall’s research findings from her studies of the apes in Africa. She found that they express similar emotions, can solve problems, have similar cultural aspects, can make tools, and maintain law and order very similarly to humans. Despite all of Goodall’s findings and evidence from other cases, animals are still not up to par with human intelligence. Animals cannot communicate with either verbal or written language like humans can, they are nowhere near as literate as humans, and their level of intelligence is not close to solving the problems that we humans have to face in our daily lives. The most crucial thing that Wise failed to mention is the effect of animals having the same rights as people; if animals are to be given the same rights as people then the result would consist of drastic consequences that could bring fundamental changes to our society—whether those consequences are good or bad.
If animals are to be given the same rights as humans, then animals would become subjective to the law just like any human would. For example, if a pit bull were to maul a child to death, the dog would receive the same treatment like any other human murder suspect. The police would place it under arrest, charge it with murder and take it to the police station for questioning. While being questioned, the dog would have to give answers to the officer’s questions. However since dogs are not on the same communication level as humans, how can the officer know what the dog is thinking or what its answers are? Following the questioning, the dog gets taken to court and tried for the heinous crime. While in court, the dog would have to acquire a lawyer on its behalf, and be able to speak for and represent itself when being questioned by the defendant’s lawyer. Once again, since dogs are not on the same communication level as humans how can the defendant’s lawyer know what the dog is thinking or what its answers are? How would the lawyer be able to interpret a bark, growl or whimper? By the end of the trial, if the dog was found guilty, it would end up in a penitentiary for the rest of its life or await its execution on death row. If the dog were to be sent to prison, it could face the potential of being mistreated by other inmates and possibly killed while serving time. If it gets sent to death row, the dog would have its life ended by lethal injection. This would not be beneficial to the activist’s goal when it comes to ending the pain and suffering of animals because the possible results of this scenario contains harm towards an animal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe final reason why animals should not be given rights is that they will be force to attend school like every single human being across America has to. This means that animals would have to learn the exact same material that children in preschool, kindergarten, elementary, middle and high school have to learn. Due to the lack of language skills that animals possess, how would they comprehend a complex question such as, “If Lynn can type a page in p minutes, what piece of the page can she do in 5 minutes?” How would the student-animal be able to understand the question, much less be able to give a logical answer? If the animal is unable to provide correct and logical answers on a test, then the resulting grade will be an F; no exceptions since it would be treated just like any other human being who fails a test. If the animal does not continue to progress academically, then a possible consequence might be repeating that grade until it manages to grasp and learn the material being taught. Another thing to note is that animals such as dogs do not have a very long life span. For example, dogs only have a life span of about 10 or 12 years. Because of this, many animals may not even get to complete middle school before the end of their lives.
ReplyDeleteGiving animals the same rights as humans is a very radical belief and an issue that will never disappear until one side of the spectrum backs down. For those who are for animal rights, their goal is to end the immoral and unethical treatment of animals and to have them viewed as people instead of objects. If their goals are met, society as we know it would be drastically changed forever; whether it be for better or worse.
It is surprising that in today’s day and age, people still vouch for torture. It’s a heinous practice. It causes negative impacts on the torturer, tortured and society in general. Yet, the pro-torture faction continues to support the practice, specifically if it helps to gain life-saving information in time. Torture, they state, should be unquestionably allowed in the above situation (known as ticking time bomb scenario). Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke are two such individuals. In their essay ‘Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible’, Bagaric and Clarke vocally argue for torture in a time bomb scenario. Ultimately it helps save lives—that’s what counts for them. What they fail to see is the fallacies involved: Information under duress is frequently proven as fake, torture can motivate its victim to stay silent, the victim may be innocent etc. Torture for information is not only morally wrong but unreliable in nature. It’s not a foolproof method of interrogation at all. There are other better methods of extracting truths from a suspect.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bagaric and Clarke, torture as an interrogation method “is permissible where…this is the only means…to save the life of an innocent person.” In other words, it’s morally acceptable for them to hurt someone in order to avert a deadly situation (e.g. a bomb attack revealed by a terrorist). The authors uphold this measure in their essay, refuting or attacking common objections against it. Their primary defense (and pivot of their arguments) is that torture has to be done for “saving an innocent life”. Any society that ignores this principle needs “ethical rewiring”. Likewise, torturers need not feel guilty and dehumanized as they’re saving lives. Bagaric and Clarke also argue for making torture accountable as to reduce its instances. Though they admit that torture may not always produce effective results, the authors feel that the weakness must be overlooked. Finally, Bagaric and Clark call for an acceptance of torture methods in life-saving circumstances; a necessary evil we have to undertake in our war on terror.
Bagaric and Clarke completely ignore the fact that the so-called “terrorist” may just be an innocent civilian. Mirko Bagaric was himself, ironically, quoted in a newspaper as saying that “it is far more repugnant to inflict harm on an innocent person than a wrongdoer”. What if the torture victim himself is an innocent? Bagaric goes on to say that in extreme cases, torture is justified even if the innocent victim dies from it. Life-saving evidence is that important to him.
Nonhuman animals deserve the same legal rights as human animals because they are thinking, feeling beings that claim ownership to this earth. “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights”--an essay written by Steven M. Wise--addresses the nonsense behind refusing animals the right to enjoy the same legal freedoms as humans. His enlightening proposal makes too much sense to be thrown away and disregarded. Many animals can feel, and think for themselves. They can think in terms of survival and make decisions based off of their own powerful feelings and instincts. In a world filled with hate, greed, dishonesty, and lies, we would be bettering ourselves to give other minds the opportunity to have a say in what goes on in the society that people are corrupting. We destroy the environment for our own selfish reasons. Slaughtering animals and annihilating the nature that surrounds us are actions that we have taken without the say of nonhumans because destruction works for us as a convenience. Animals live on this land that we are swiftly tearing apart, and we eat the families that they try to protect. Nonhuman animals are born with the right to have some sort of say in how human animals treat them and their homes, especially when most of them cannot even speak for themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn Wise’s essay, he pinpoints autonomy as one of the main definitions of being a human. Autonomy is so crucial because it means that decisions can be made on the basis of needs or desires, and it leads to independent decision making. The time for ruling out the possibility of animals possessing autonomy is coming to a screeching hault as scientists investigate the brains of many unique nonhuman animals such as gorillas and bonobos. However, Wise analyzes the problems with autonomy: its controversial definition. Not everyone can say that autonomy has the *I have not had enough sleep to finish this paragraph.
Consider the word “outdated” for a moment. If you are writing a research paper that involves scholarly journals as sources, it makes the most sense to pick articles that are reliable. No one ever considers using a scholarly journal in their paper if they are reading about information written several years ago that has since been proven false. That is because it is outdated. Now, imagine basing your actions off of information that is losing more and more relevance with each passing year. The human race is living insanely when we treat animals as if they are solely things with no sense of autonomy in any way. Others are discovering research that overrides this way of thinking. Scientific research proves that many animals have feelings, language, and a sense of self. They have groups of family and/or pack members. When people are coming closer and closer to the conclusion that animals are not merely things, but autonomous creatures, why do we continue to slaughter them by the millions and neglect their feelings? Behaving in such a way only means that we are basing our logic on outdated beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe human race has one priority that overrules everything and everyone else: themselves. By design, we are a very selfish species. Our health, needs, desires, emotions, opinions, dreams, goals, anguish and appearance take precedence almost one hundred percent of the time, and this is usually instinctual. Being selfish is not necessarily a negative aspect of our wiring. Selfishness can be key for survival, because we are thinking about the measures that to take which would benefit us best. But, consulting ones own wishes sometimes involves setting aside logic and reasoning just to suit our own needs. Wise tells us of research he found about animal treatment that says, “10 billion more [animals] will be raised in factories so crowded that they unable to turn around, and then killed for food” (Wise, 194). This sounds strikingly similar to the horrendous murdering that took place in nazi concentration camps in World War II, where people could not move around because of how crowded they were before being killed off in batches. No one will ever incorporate nazi politics into the world of humans ever again, but we do not think twice when treating animals in that same regard because the majority of the population eats them. Selfishness overrules logic and leaks over into the realm of insanity when the drive to survive becomes too strong. Nonhuman animals have every right to say “no” to this awful treatment.
A 7-year-old bonobo “drubbed a human 2-year-old, named Alia, in a series of language-comprehension test” (Wise, 195). Animals can make tools and “form complex mental representations” in their minds. If the human population is going to continue being so ignorant, we will never be able to thrive. Animals deserve rights because they have the ability to make more sense than we do by loving the land and supporting their families. It is time to throw away senseless and outdated logic and give animals the legal rights they deserve.
PART 1
ReplyDeleteEvery parent’s goal is to raise their children in a way that teaches them to have respect for others. Without this respect, a child will not get very far in life. Today many occupations require very little respect of others, especially in the meat production industry. The conditions animals face in these situations are completely inhumane and should be taken care of immediately. But since animals are not considered human, as Steven M. Wise discusses in his essay “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” they have no rights. Even with the exception of those that come into play when it is too late, these animals are rarely saved. Since animals are living and breathing creatures, like humans, they should have the same legal rights.
Wise argues that animals should be treated equally as human in the eyes of the law. Nonhuman animals have been “invisible to civil law since it’s inception.” Many people, Wise suggests, believe that nonhuman animals are on this earth solely for human use and lack autonomy. They think that since “animals knew nothing of the past and could not imagine a future,” they did not deserve to be considered equally in a court of law. Wise mentions a few tests that have been given in order to prove that animals are more intelligent than most humans think. A 7-year-old bonobo “drubbed” a human 2-year-old in a series of language-comprehension tests. Also, apes have been proven to have most, if not all, of the emotions that we do. Wise argues, “Twenty-first-century law should be based on twenty-first-century knowledge.” He implies that this evidence should be taken into further consideration in order to get the animals the rights that they deserve.
The cruelty with which humans treat animals in order to use them for food is shocking. These are living, breathing things that humans abuse in ways that some could never even imagine. In an article by PETA, the typical life of a cow is discussed. “When they are still very young, many cows are burned with hot irons (branded), their horns are cut or burned off, and male cattle have their testicles ripped out of their scrotums (castrated)—all without painkillers. Once they have grown big enough, they are sent to massive, filthy feedlots where they are exposed to the elements, to be fattened for slaughter. Many female cows are sent to dairy farms, where they will be repeatedly impregnated and separated from their calves until their bodies give out and they are sent to be killed.” The life that these cows are given is unfair to them. The way that we put them do death is even worse, as stated by PETA. “Many cows die on the way to slaughter, but those who survive are shot in the head with a captive-bolt gun, hung up by one leg, and taken onto the killing floor where their throats are cut and they are skinned and gutted. Some cows remain fully conscious throughout the entire process.” As one slaughterhouse worker said in an interview with The Washington Post, “they die piece by piece.” Cows are not the only types of animals that are suffering this way. Every popular food that comes from an animal has most likely come from a slaughterhouse like this one. These animals deserve to be treated fairly and have equal rights so that they can avoid these horrible situations.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteAnimals, like cows, may be considered by some as simply things that occupy space. Actually, cows are very intelligent and caring living things according to PETA. “Many cows die on the way to slaughter, but those who survive are shot in the head with a captive-bolt gun, hung up by one leg, and taken onto the killing floor where their throats are cut and they are skinned and gutted. Some cows remain fully conscious throughout the entire process.” Just like an unborn child, animals have no say in what happens to them, but they still have feelings and they deserve to be treated better than how they have been. Not only are animals in these slaughterhouses emotionally aware, they are intelligent. Reported by PETA, pigs are considered to be smarter than an average three year old. “Many people who know pigs compare them to dogs because they are friendly, loyal, and intelligent. Pigs are naturally very clean and avoid soiling their living areas. When they are not confined on factory farms, pigs spend hours playing, lying in the sun, and exploring their surroundings with their powerful sense of smell.” Pigs, like cows, do not deserve to be mistreated like this. They need to earn the representation of the law in order to get out of the mess that they have been in for so long.
Animals would benefit from legal rights because they would have a chance at no longer suffering in the horrible conditions that they are currently bound to. As living, caring and loving things, they share many emotional traits with humans. Animals also have intelligence that puts them on a similar level to humans, but more importantly makes them aware of their surroundings and causing them great depression. If the law would consider these animals as equal to humans, which they deserve, they would no longer be forced to sustain these unlivable conditions.
PART 1
ReplyDeleteIn “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven M. Wise argues that nonhuman animals deserve legal human rights because they possess many of the same characteristics as humans. However, Wise does not touch on the reasons why animals are not granted legal human rights. Giving animals legal human rights will not work because animal liberation unavoidably will involve great costs and discomfort for individuals and deny human and non-human animals future comfort as a result of the experimentation process.
Wise argues that nonhuman animals deserve legal human rights because they possess many of the same characteristics as humans. Wise first claims that animals act autonomously, also known as self-determination or volition, a criterion sufficient for basic human rights. However, no one can come up with an appropriate definition of the term. Wise next proves that some animals are more rational than young children. He supports this claim through decades of collected research that some animals “have extraordinary minds” allowing them to use language and a rational plan for one’s life. Wise concludes that new evidence shows animals possess emotions similar to humans; thus, they should be protected in a court of law.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteAnimals are not given legal rights because animal liberation unavoidably will create large costs for some. Giving rights to animals would financially hurt those cultures – including our own – that are based on animal farming and hunting. [EVIDENCE]. Many individuals would need to eat a form of a vegetarian diet because the cost of eating nonhuman animals would be vastly more expensive. One may argue that cultures are not sacred, and that they could be changed, at least in the long run. However, if some cultures like the Eskimos could not manage without hunting and slaughter, the rich Western world will have to pay for them to cope. The price of financing the cultures that could not survive on a form of a vegetarian diet would be detrimental to the Western countries economies. [EVIDENCE]. Should The United States of America’s economy fail, the global economy would loose one-ninth of its global output expansion. Consequently, the global economy would shift into recession, with no capability of recovery.
Giving legal human rights to nonhuman animals would cause discomfort for some individuals. Many human interests — health and quality of life — would have to be sacrificed in order to fully implement animal liberation. In fact, some people could become ill from a form of vegetarian nourishment. [EVIDENCE]. Do we allow these individuals to get sick and possibly die because their body cannot successfully manage with a change in diet? If so, animal activists are making the argument that the lives of animals are more important than humans. Because animal lives are saved, those animals are not eaten as food, and individuals who cannot cope with the dietary change could die.
The claim that we can do without painful animal experiments in medical research is false. The denial of experimentation will result in the lack of access to future human and animal comfort. Through the experimentation process, cures will be developed. Consequently, allowing us to prevent much suffering for both humans and nonhuman animals in the future. [EVIDENCE].
[CONCLUSION]….
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete• Factories
ReplyDeleteo “Living” facilities
Not much living to be cooped up so tight that an animal cannot turn around, eating their own feces or parts of other animals,
• Should be naturally feed and let roam, give them at least a little life before someone cuts it short
Just think: the public’s food is coming from a factory that is dirtier than a toilet… you might as well eat out of the porcelain throne; would be cleaner
o Seems common thought that our food comes from the grocery, and not from natural sources anymore, ppl have forgotten where our food comes from
Think about where the majority of our food comes form if not organic or local: inhumane slaughtering houses and industrial farms, along with genetically modified, pesticide infested produce
What happened to the connection people once had with nature and the food they ate, the bond between animal and man and the help from natural, organic organisms, one with the earth
• Hunting and exploitation
o Hunting animals for the thrill and not for survival
If not put to use, considered murder?
• Hunters that shoot an animal to leave in agony because they were “out of season” and illegal, but they just wanted to get a thrill
o Do they ever think of the lives they are disrupting? Do they have young or a mate?
*after being vegetarian for 4 years, I cannot imagine eating something that was once alive and then killed inhumanely for my consumption when healthier alternatives are available. Personally, I would not eat meat unless I were to kill and prepare an animal myself, which I know I will not do unless stranded and desperate in the wilderness*
o Demoralizing circus and zoo animals
Not enough space or poor treatment, they shouldn’t be tortured for our amusement but be sought as an educational source with them being as comfortable as possible since they have been taken away from their natural environment or not even able to know where they are naturally from (birth in captivity
Should be given sufficient space and as natural as possible, not overcrowded in a cell made for one animal, reserves and sanctuaries are where they should reside. So people can see them roam “free” instead of pacing in a cubicle
• The Wilds
Is this not the same as human prostitution?
• People pay to see circus animals do tricks and parade around, while in the background no one ever sees the punishment and gruel training they are put through for our amusement
Ever since my family got our tiny white Maltese Calamity Jane, Callie for short, we have had to change our living patterns. Although she is just a dog, she is a big part of our family. Anyone who enters our home cannot do a single thing before they pet Callie or hold her. The second the garage door begins to open, or the key is turning in the front door, she begins to bark and jump with excitement. Leaving the house is just as much of a task as coming in. Callie will latch her teeth on to the pant leg of someone walking towards the door and whimper until the door is shut. Steven M. Wise, in “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” states that animals deserve legal rights because they have emotions.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Wise, non-human animals have autonomy; they have self-determination. Although difficult to prove, animals display a thought process and are able to demonstrate those actions. They show emotions that are very similar to humans and are able to attempt to communicate their emotions.
Like any human child, animals are not born knowing how to do everything and are not able to communicate. When Callie is pulling on my pant leg as I leave, she is trying to tell me that she does not want me to leave. He motives behind it are hard to distinguish, but she is clearly showing that she wants me to stay with her. Animals do not sit and hope that someone will feed them; they go and make an effort to get food. Callie will push her food bowl across the hardwood because she knows someone will hear it and know she wants food. Although a very feeble attempt, she gets the point across.
Animals are able to “make choices, even if she can’t evaluate their merits very well,” according to Wise. Conscious decisions are made by animals that direct their lives. Although their brains may be smaller than humans, they still are able to formulate their ideas. In the peak of summer’s heat, Callie will sleep on the floor instead of the bed because she knows that it is much cooler on the floor. Animals have the ability to recognize more than one option and act on what they choose.
Wise also states that animals have the ability to form new ideas. “They [animals] use insight, not just trial and error.” Through a test done with a 7-year-old bonobo and a 2-year-old human, they found more intelligence in the bonobo than the human. Callie has shown insight in many instances. Because she is so small, Callie is unable to jump up on the bed. My father built a ramp for her to walk up so she could get herself on the bed. We trained her to walk up the ramp, but she was able to jump down by herself. As she is getting older it is becoming more difficult to jump. Without training her, she began to walk down the ramp instead of jumping. This was a conscious decision by an animal.
Steven Wise recognizes that animals are able to empathize. Animals show compassion for humans and for other animals. Although difficult to prove, their actions are purposeful and meaningful in the attempt to be able to relate. When I fractured my rib I was miserable with pain. I stayed in bed for weeks and my dog did not leave my side. At night when I would wake up in pain crying she would lick the salty tears kissing the pain away. Although I did not enjoy her licking my face I knew she genuinely cared.
ReplyDeleteGiving animals legal rights is a necessary advancement, but would also need to have a limit to which legal rights. Animals are not at the functioning level of humans, but they do contain a lot of the same emotions, entitling them to some legal rights. They are not deserving of rights such as voting or owning property, but there are some that are needed for survival. Animals deserve to be protected and treated in a just manor. They deserve to be free from abuse and the fear of abuse. When my dog is ill or sad it hurts me and I could not imagine more pain being laid on other animals. Having the same emotions, animals deserve the same treatment as humans.
Steven Wise illuminated the idea of animals having the same rights as humans. Since new information is being found the laws also need to adjust to the results. Animals have so many emotions equal to humans qualifying them to have the same treatment, free of torture. Their emotions are real and strong and need to be treated with respect.
How would the world be if animals had legal rights? How would these rights be upheld? Would we have to imprison a wolf for killing a deer? Would every species of animal be granted legal rights? If animals were granted legal rights, would anything change?
ReplyDeleteIn “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” Steven M. Wise urges that legal rights be given to some animals. He expresses that intelligence levels should be a qualification for obtaining these legal rights. He points out that today animals are mostly ignored by the law. Wise makes it clear that punishing humans for neglecting or torturing animals is just not enough. He tells how billions of animals are killed, “sometimes painfully,” and exploited every year. Moreover, we can infer that, to Wise, death and exploitation of animals should not be a common occurrence. The subsequent paragraphs in his essay serve as a discussion on the qualifications for legal rights. Once he concludes that “autonomy” is the most agreed upon qualification, Wise discusses the definition of autonomy. Afterwards, he provides evidence of nonhuman animals displaying the same amount of intelligence as a human toddler. To suggest that some animals should be granted legal rights, Wise claims that “twenty-first-century law should be based on twenty-first-century knowledge.”
Doesn’t it make sense to grant legal rights based on intelligence levels? From Wise’s discussion on qualifications for legal rights we can deduce that “autonomy” is indeed a logical qualification. Now we need to define autonomy. From the essay we can combine different ideas to come up with a working definition. We can start by using the qualities of animals that, according to Wise, many Stoics denied them such as: “the capacities to perceive, conceive, reason, remember, believe, [and] even experience.” Additionally, from Kant’s definition we can derive the idea that if a being is absolutely unable to think rationally the being is not autonomous. It follows that non-autonomous animals should not be granted legal rights.
Is this definition of autonomy too much to ask of animals? Wise shows “that at least some nonhuman animals have extraordinary minds.” He describes how a seven-year-old bonobo out smarted a two-year-old human “in a series of language comprehension tests.” Wise also points out that apes have emotions, are self-conscious, can teach, deceive, and empathize and have many other mental capabilities. From these studies we see that some species are indeed autonomous and do in fact deserve legal rights.
At this point in the argument more questions arise. Should we begin testing all animals for autonomy? Would the billions of afore mentioned animals being killed and exploited be considered autonomous? Does this mean different species should be granted different legal rights? Frankly, it’s highly doubtful that trout, chicken, and cows would be considered autonomous on the same level as apes or even dogs. Wise’s essay fails to provide answers to the questions that arise from his argument. With all these loose ends Wise’s argument loses direction and purpose.
The essay causes the reader to wonder whether or not anything would actually change if animals were granted legal rights. Ultimately, the argument would lead to harsher restrictions on circuses, zoos, and other such organizations. However, many would agree that we can place these restrictions without having to intellectually evaluate every species of animal and grant them separate legal rights.
Steven Wise argues in “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” that non-human animals deserve legal rights because they have many human like qualities. Non-human animals at least deserve to be treated in a humane fashion while they are alive.
ReplyDeleteWise believes that non-human animals do not receive legal rights because not all people recognize them as having human characteristics. Various studies have proven that they possess. He claims that although non-human animals were perceived to be merely things in the past, there have been studies that prove that they have many of the same traits that define humans as being human. He goes on to state that philosophers have decided that autonomy is the criteria for being human. Although autonomy is simply defined as self-determination or volition, the term is not easily definable. Kant believed a person to be autonomous if they could always act rationally, but philosophers see that no human could reach this standard. Many of them have defined autonomy as the ability to act upon one’s preferences or to be able to make choices. Even so, there is no clear cut definition what defines humans as being human.
Animals are abused in various ways. Not only are they used in medical and cosmetic research, but they are used in factory farming and entertainment. Factory famers contain hundreds to thousands of food animals in extremely cramped conditions. Hens are kept in battery cages: wire cages that are no longer than 16 inches wide in which up to five hens are stored. The animals are kept there, hardly ever seeing the sunlight, and live short and painful lives. The conditions they are in cause the animals to become stressed. Factory farmers started the practice of debeaking the chickens, turkeys, and ducks, so that they would not peck out their feathers or take up cannibalism. The process of debeaking involves removing the top half and bottom third of a bird’s beak by cutting through bone, cartilage, and soft tissue. In these conditions, non-human animals are treated as no more than things. They exist only so they can provide human’s food. The farmers use the lighting in the farms to simulate longer or shorter days, confusing the animals into unnatural growth patterns. They also use artificial means to get breeding animals to reproduce at harmful rates. This leads to their early deaths from exhaustion. The animals are bred and raised in specific ways that will affect the quality of their meat. The calves that are used to produce white veal are kept in two foot wide crates and chained to inhibit movement. They are formula-fed and are given a diet that gives them anemia, which combined with the lack of exercise, causes pale and tender meat.
According to kintera.org, 1 million to 2 million animals are used in research every year. Rabbits are used commonly for toxicity testing for cosmetic products. They are used for the Draize tests which involve them being locked in full body restraints while liquid, flake, granule, and powdered substances are placed in their eyes and the eye’s deterioration is recorded. Farm animals have lately been used for cloning and genetic engineering experiments. Cats have been used in neurology research that study spinal cord injury. These experiments cause the cats to undergo pain and stress. Usually, this type of research ends up with the cat being euthanized after being subjected to vivisection procedures.
ReplyDeleteNon-human animals have been subject to the entertainment industry for years. They are forced to participate in the circus. People support the circus because they love to see the animals perform, but they do not realize what kind of abuse the animals go through behind the curtain. The main method of training these animals is through physical abuse. They know that when they learn their routines, they will get food and water. Circus animals lead confined lives were they are social deprived and endure physical abuse. Greyhound races are also popular sport. These dogs are starved so there is incentive to chase the rabbit around the track. Greyhounds are bred on the Greyhound breeding farms and only the few wanted race dogs stay alive. The others are destroyed. The racing dogs spend the majority of their lives in cages that are barely large enough to stand in.
Non-human animals are more than just things. Nowadays, people cannot claim ignorance by saying that non-human animals cannot feel or comprehend. They deserve to be respected as the living beings that they are. Even though humans do require other animals for food, those animals still require a quality to their short lives before they are slaughtered.
EDIT 2
ReplyDeleteEvery parent’s goal is to raise their children in a way that teaches them to have respect for other beings. Without this respect, a child will not get very far in life. However, today the basic respect of living things is not required to make a living. Many occupations require very little respect of others, especially in the meat production industry. The conditions animals face in the facilities provided by the industry are completely inhumane and should be dealt with immediately. But, since animals are not considered human, as Steven M. Wise discusses in “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” they do not have the rights to do so. Even with the exception of those rights that come into play when it is too late, animals are rarely saved. They deserve the same legal rights since they are living and breathing creatures, just like humans.
Wise argues that animals should be treated equally as humans in the eyes of the law. Nonhuman animals have been “invisible to civil law since it’s inception.” Many people, Wise suggests, believe that nonhuman animals are on this earth solely for human use and lack autonomy. They think that since “animals knew nothing of the past and could not imagine a future,” they did not deserve to be considered equally in a court of law. Wise mentions a few tests that have been given in order to prove that animals are more intelligent than most humans think. A 7-year-old bonobo “drubbed” a human 2-year-old in a series of language-comprehension tests. Also, apes have been proven to have most, if not all, of the emotions that we do. Wise argues, “Twenty-first-century law should be based on twenty-first-century knowledge.” He implies that this evidence should be taken into further consideration in order to get the animals the rights that they deserve.
The cruelty with which humans treat animals in order to use them for food is shocking. These animals are abused by humans in ways that some could never fathom. In an article by PETA, the typical life of a cow is discussed. “When they are still very young, many cows are burned with hot irons (branded), their horns are cut or burned off, and male cattle have their testicles ripped out of their scrotums (castrated)—all without painkillers. Once they have grown big enough, they are sent to massive, filthy feedlots where they are exposed to the elements, to be fattened for slaughter. Many female cows are sent to dairy farms, where they will be repeatedly impregnated and separated from their calves until their bodies give out and they are sent to be killed.” The life that these cows are given is unfair to them. The way that they are put do death is even worse, as stated by PETA. “Many cows die on the way to slaughter, but those who survive are shot in the head with a captive-bolt gun, hung up by one leg, and taken onto the killing floor where their throats are cut and they are skinned and gutted. Some cows remain fully conscious throughout the entire process.” As one slaughterhouse worker said in an interview with The Washington Post, “they die piece by piece.” Cows are not the only types of animals that are suffering this way. Every popular food that comes from an animal has most likely come from a slaughterhouse like this one. These animals deserve to be treated fairly and have equal rights so that they can avoid these horrible situations.
Animals, like cows, may be considered by some as simply things that occupy space. Actually, cows are very intelligent and caring living things according to PETA. “Many cows die on the way to slaughter, but those who survive are shot in the head with a captive-bolt gun, hung up by one leg, and taken onto the killing floor where their throats are cut and they are skinned and gutted. Some cows remain fully conscious throughout the entire process.” Just like an unborn child, animals have no say in what happens to them, but they still have feelings and deserve to be treated better. Not only are animals in these slaughterhouses emotionally aware, they are intelligent. Reported by PETA, pigs are considered to be smarter than an average three year old. They have qualities similar to humans in several areas of their lives. “Many people who know pigs compare them to dogs because they are friendly, loyal, and intelligent. Pigs are naturally very clean and avoid soiling their living areas. When they are not confined on factory farms, pigs spend hours playing, lying in the sun, and exploring their surroundings with their powerful sense of smell.” Pigs, like cows, do not deserve to be mistreated like this. They need to earn the representation of the law in order to get out of the mess that they have been in for so long.
ReplyDeleteAnimals would benefit from legal rights because they would no longer suffer in the current horrible conditions. As living, caring, and loving things, they share many emotional traits with humans. Animals also have intelligence that puts them on a similar level to humans, but more importantly, makes them aware of their surroundings and causing them great depression. If the law would consider these animals as equal to humans, they would no longer be forced to sustain these unlivable conditions.
Ever since my family got our Maltese puppy, Calamity Jane, aka Callie, we have had to change our living patterns. Although she resembles a dog, she is a big part of our family and seems more human than animal. Anyone who enters our home cannot do anything before they pet or hold Callie. The second the garage door begins to open or the key turns in the front door, she begins to bark and jump with excitement. Leaving the house is just as much of a task as entering. Callie will latch her tiny teeth onto the pant leg of someone walking towards the door and whimper until the door is shut. Subsequently, she will run to the window, watch, and wait for us to return. Steven M. Wise in “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” states that animals deserve legal rights because they have emotions. Callie is clearly exhibiting emotion: happiness, sadness, and intelligence!
ReplyDeleteAccording to Wise, non-human animals have autonomy; they have self-determination. Animals, although difficult to prove, display a thought process and are able to demonstrate those feelings. They feel emotions that are very similar to those of humans and are able to communicate those emotions. Some humans do not recognize animal’s actions as being an expression of human-like emotions.
Animals are not born “all-knowing.” Not unlike humans, they learn the meaning of certain words and actions through repetition and reward. When Callie is pulling on my pant leg, she is trying to tell me that she doesn’t want me to leave. Her motive behind this action is not hard to determine. She is clearly showing that she wants me to stay with her. When she needs something to eat, she has a way of communicating her hunger. Callie will push her food bowl across the floor because she knows we will hear it and feed her. A certain level of intelligence allows her to understand that her actions generally result in the response she is seeking.
Animals are able to “make choices even if they can’t evaluate their merits very well,” according to Wise. Animals make conscious decisions that direct their lives. They have the ability to recognize more than one option and act on it. In the peak of summer’s heat, Callie sleeps on the floor instead of the bed because she knows that it is much cooler on the floor. She may not understand why it’s cooler, but she knows that it is. Although their brains are smaller than humans, they are still able to formulate ideas.
Wise also states that animals have the ability to form new ideas. “They [animals] use insight, not just trial and error.” Through a test done with a 7 year old bonobo and a 2 year old human,