Length: 750+ words
Due Dates: See syllabus (3/4 as a draft and 3/14 for a grade)
1. Pick one of the two essays on pp. 194 – 200 and argue in favor of (confirmation) or against (refutation) its premise/ thesis. However, you should try as best you can to develop your own thesis, your own unique perspective, about the topic.
2. In the first paragraph, develop your perspective as a response to the source. You might want to mention the author’s name and the title of the essay in paragraph one.
3. In paragraph two, summarize the source’s thesis and main supporting ideas. Note: You have already written this paragraph, but you might have to make some changes to put it in the context of the larger essay.
4. In subsequent paragraphs, confirm or refute the source’s thesis and main supporting ideas in separate paragraphs. Let the summary paragraph guide the organization of these “body” paragraphs.
5. As you write those paragraphs, think in terms of the paragraph “moves” we discussed in class. In any given paragraph, are you discussing the effect(s), positive or negative, of the source’s general thesis/ proposal? Are you confirming its general argument/ thesis in a way that the writer did not? Are you confirming one of its supporting arguments/ sub-points? Are you refuting the general premise/ thesis? Are you refuting one of its supporting arguments/ sub-points? Are you responding to one of its counter arguments? (Are you refuting its refutation? Doesn’t writing a response essay get durned complicated?) Each paragraph is an argumentative move and therefore requires a specific argumentative pattern.
6. Provide evidence for the source’s point of view in the form of SHORT quotation. You want to sound objective and even-handed here even if you disagree.
7. Provide evidence for your point of view in the form of short quotation and paraphrase. Cite the sources informally in the text.
8. Include a concluding paragraph, but in an essay this short, you should not be summarizing your essay or the sources ideas. We will discuss approaches to introductions and conclusions in class. If you want to jump ahead, read Chapter 13 of the Handbook.
9. By 3/4/2011, post your advanced draft here and bring a hard copy to class for peer review.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike concentration camps, factory farm animals receive appalling housing and living conditions. These “living” facilities that animals are forced to call home are crammed, unsanitary, and censored from the public. Wise found that “10 billion more [animals] will be raised in factories so crowded that they’re unable to turn around, and then killed for food.” Being cooped up in an overpopulated cage or pen leaves animals wallowing in their own feces and among the corpses of those who could not withstand the horrid conditions. If animals are used for stock, then they should be given the right to lead a natural life for as long as possible before it is cut short. By allowing them the natural benefits of free range and organic feed, it may act as payment for having to give their lives to sustain humans. Since majority of the public’s food does not come from organic, free-range farms, where does it come from? Most likely the population’s food is coming from a factory that is dirtier than a toilet, so they might as well grab a fork and eat out of the porcelain throne where it may be cleaner. Our country has forgotten where our food comes from as well as how it is truly produced and manufactured. Today, the sustenance provided by animals originates from inhumane slaughtering houses and industrial farms. What happened to the connection and understanding between man and creature? To see animals on respectively the same level as humans, a natural balance is achieved.
ReplyDeleteThe natural sustenance and beauty from animals should be used with respect and mercy. Today, hunting is nothing but a sport to most huntsman and observation nothing but a profit to most companies. Wise also found reports from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that “hundreds of millions [of animals] will be shot by hunters or exploited in rodeos, circuses, and roadside zoos.” It has been found that hunters will only hunt animals for the thrill and not for betterment of their survival. Specifically, when a certain animals “season” is not available, these people will kill whatever they get a shot at and will leave it to die since it is illegal to harvest that particular animal. Could this method of hunting and waste be considered murder? Animals are not things or trophies; they are living beings with families and traditions. 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. However, there must be a connection between myself and the animal and an understanding as to why I must take a life to keep my own.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteImagine 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.” Moreover, 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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
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.” There have also been studies proving that elephants express many emotions. One emotion easily seen in elephants is grief. As pbs.org explains, “Elephants remember and mourn loved ones, even many years after their death. When an elephant walks past a place that a loved one died he or she will stop and take a silent pause that can last several minutes. While standing over the remains, the elephant may touch the bones of the dead elephant (not the bones of any other species), smelling them, turning them over and caressing the bones with their trunk.” The evidence surrounding the ape and elephant studies supports that animals do express human emotions; they can feel and experience what we do.
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind, animals need to be seen as equal to humans if there is any hope in making progress for their humane treatment. If animals were just given the basic rights to have respect, to be granted dignity, and to be treated humanely, then they would lead much better lives. Also, 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. They provide 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, as a society, 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.
ReplyDeleteAnimals 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 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. Elephants live long lives and have only one mate. Elephants must choose wisely as they will have only one partner for their entire lives. In addition, choices can affect the group or the extended family. Take wolves for example. Wolves work in packs and the pack depends on every member to contribute. To limit the strain on the pack, only one pair of wolves is allowed to reproduce at a time. The cubs are dependent on the pack and contribute little so by limiting the number of them, the pack can make sure the cubs are well cared for.
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. Similarly, Pavlov found that the dogs in his experiment reacted to cues that indicated food’s arrival. The dogs salivated at the appearance of the person who feed them before they saw food.
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.
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. Many riders use spurs, small metal spikes, to make the horse or bull buck harder because the rider receives a higher score for staying on an animal that jumps higher. Some animals have been trained to be vicious. Dogs are trained to be vicious and to kill their opponent so their owner can enter them in dog fights. The dogs that survive the horrible events are often left with scars around their necks and faces. These fights are illegal, but they still occur. Many dogs rescued from the horrible world of dog fighting must be euthanized because they are too violent to be adopted.
ReplyDeleteThese transgressions have been noticed and people are working to achieve more rights for non-human animals. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or 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.
The horrible treatment of non-human animals should not be ignored, but how to recognize them? Give 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. 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. Animals deserve the right to life and death without pain. Animals should have a safe home, one where they are feed properly and protected from harm.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteToday, as humans we still struggle with equality amongst ourselves as a speci that has recognize that we technically function the same way we still maintain many barriers of inequality. Science of the twentieth -first century has proved regardless of race, ethnic background, religion, gender, sex and age, that we are one in the same, and as a result we are not partial to the forces of mother nature. However, we are different, we are the same but opposite to create a balance. Yet, despite this notion, we still express sovereignty above each other, creating superiority complexes that subdue to others to inferiority. Hence, gender inequality, racism and religious inequality set an imbalance with the natural order of things. At the moment, we are trying to resolve centuries of these issues but sadly this revolution drags on. Even though, we have become enlightened we have discovered that we share similar qualities with other animals, we have become a bit more cognizant of their feelings and respect for their environments. We are aware that some animals are self-conscious of themselves. For example apes, dolphins and elephants to a certain extent, are aware of themselves in a mirror amongst many more capabilities that we are researching. Animals may have the ability to reproduce, expire, hunt and move, but has not evolved to the level of humans. Animals have their place in nature but are at no level to be considered equal to a human being. I believe they should be granted certain rights and proper treatment, but Steven M. Wise has a different point of view, which he expresses in his article, Why Animals Deserve Legal rights.
ReplyDeleteThe article, he writes about the changes in perception of humanity, from Monarchs and individuals of upper class owning slaves to the classification of every human as a person by law. Wise argues that non- human animals are classified as things with no rights and ignored by the law unless someone helps them. Often time he states this help comes too late. In addition, he argues that millions of animals will abuse, exploited and killed a year and many people have accepted this to be legal. Furthermore, he supports his argument by adding theological and philosophical theories of autonomy that are used to justify the distinction between superiority of humans and animals. His article goes on to say that people believe that animals were put on earth for human use and making them things which lack autonomy. On the other hand, he makes the comparison that Aristotle believed that animals could perceive and react to their environments .In contrast to Aristotle’s beliefs, stoics thought that animals could do neither perceives, react to their environments, have experiences, memory, or even learn. Wise used scientific discoveries about animal behavior to support his claim that animals deserve equal rights like humans. Consequently, evidence from these experiments and research has shown that many animals that posses human like characteristics and behaviors. In conclusion, he believes that this is a new age and we should begin treating animals with respect, sharing equal rights.
The word “torture” has a nothing but negative connotation among people, and when one states that they are not against the use of torture in the most crucial of circumstances, this sends a different message than what authors Bagaric and Clarke are trying to get across. There needs to be a different term to distinguish offensive torture in which a criminal initiates torturous actions from the form of torture that in some circumstances is okay to use; that in which is needed in "self defense" to instill justice and get away safely from an abusive person.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is important to distinguish the difference between using torture on a criminal at that very crucial time that the victim is being held under the criminal, as compared to instilling torture later on when the victim is safe as a means of coming to peace with the torture by getting revenge on that person. Referred to as "immediacy" of the situation, even the latter of the two is not condoned by the authors of the original article, nor is it the form of self defensive torture that I believe should be condoned. Torturing back can be seen as a power surge, however one should never stoop to the level of the torturer unless it is absolutely necessary due to the immediacy of the situation.
As said before, the act of outlawing torture altogether may seem like the only way to prevent it from happening, yet it is evident from this law and other non-tolerance laws that a complete ban on anything doesn’t keep every single person from engaging in it, and often makes it more difficult for everyone when this act continues to be committed by outlaws. For example, the idea of gun bans in our country have been questioned and an important point has been brought up; that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns. This similarly describes the case with torture; if you outlaw torture, only criminals will use torture and it will have a more significant impact on the victims of torture than it would if it were frowned upon but not illegal. This is because the only people outlawing torture would hurt are those people stuck being tortured and instead of freeing themselves through means of torturous self defense, they are stuck thinking about the legality of escaping their situation.
Also, through creating a less severe policy towards torture or anything illegal has proven in psychology to actually decrease the amount of that activity that goes on. This is because when people are given less punishment for an act they are forced to internalize this act and wonder if they really want to do it or if they just wanted to because they wanted to break the law for some angst –filled reason. What this means is that torturers would think of torture not in terms of showing their anger towards their country or its laws, but instead would think of it more casually and wonder if they really wanted to commit this gross act when it had no outward implications other than hurting the innocent victim. Although many criminals have little or no conscience, this less strict policy still creates greater conflict in to their inner self when committed.
ReplyDeleteExperiencing torturous acts going on and choosing to do nothing about them is as much of a crime as committing an act of torture to save the victim. This is known as the “bystander effect” coined by Darley and Latane. It has been proven that in many situations, especially if there are more than one person experiencing the act of torture, that people tend to refrain from helping with the assumption that someone else will. Knowing that people are already prone to question helping or not, asking them to help by means of something that is illegal such as torture is even more of a reason for the witness to do little or nothing due to the laws against torture. However, this should not be the case. The victim shouldn’t be ignored simply because of their request for torture to be countered on the criminal in means of getting away safely.
I see the importance of solving these horrid cases in a more humanistic way than by means of torture by stooping to the level of the torturer. It is true that doing so will dehumanize the torturer in the same way that they dehumanized the victim, however, sometimes these means are necessary to instill justice and free oneself from a crucial, possibly life staking situation. Although the criminal still has human rights including that of not being tortured, the victim also has a more important right; that of self defense. And for this reason, as the authors point out, "it is verging on moral indecency to prefer the interests of the wrongdoer". An eye for an eye is a phrase that has been around for awhile and I think it holds true here as well, even though the victim really shouldn’t reciprocate the torture unless it will directly benefit their safety, it is still a humane way of treating the case.
Although I, and assumingly the authors, love the idea of a world without torture, it has come to our realization that this is an idealistic point of view. It would be great to think and make laws in terms of what would make a perfect world, however, considering the current standing of our world, we must think realistically and take a "pain minimalization approach". This means taking into consideration not what will cause no pain, because in these situations pain will have already been inflicted. Instead, it unfortunately means that we must choose a route of escape that will inflict the least amount of pain on the innocent and hopefully no pain on the wrongdoer, but that cannot always be the case.
Finally we’re left with only justice and morality. Certain apes might be able to think ahead, communicate and even live in basic communities, but they have nothing on justice and morality. These two traits are the backbone of real society; these two traits are what really set humans and animals apart. Think about the simple act of lying. No invention is more simple, powerful and distinctly human than a lie. This might sound offensive at first, but think about it. Lying shows very clearly that humans are able to identify what is right, what is wrong, what they should have done, what they actually did and how to still get something they want even after doing what was wrong. Well, get ready for the rabbit to come out of the hat yet again because as the saying goes, “We are not alone.” That’s right, we are once again joined by apes, this time a chimpanzee named Lucy, in the ability to lie. Lucy was a chimpanzee who worked with Maurice K. Temerlin, a psychotherapist and professor at the University of Oklahoma. Lucy was taught American Sign Language and involved in many research experiments but she is easily most famous for her little white lie. One day Roger Fouts, the primatologist who taught Lucy sign language, showed up to find chimpanzee poop on the floor. Fouts asked Lucy whose poop was on the floor. Lucy first tried to tell Fouts that it was his, next that it was Sue’s and finally that it was not hers before admitting that it was hers.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the list has finally run its course. But what does it all mean? Can we really give animals rights all the sudden? Are cows about to vote and horses about to gain marriage rights? This is not supposed to be an outlandish paper proclaiming that animals are our equals and we are one in the same. We are all very different but that is no excuse for a lack of mutual respect. However this paper is indeed proclaiming that stories like Jerom, a chimpanzee who was locked in a cage without sunlight and infected with four different strains of HIV before dying need to stop. Wise writes in another one of his papers, “[Animals] most basic and fundamental interests — their pains, their lives, their freedoms — are intentionally ignored, often maliciously trampled, and routinely abused.” I hope that after reading this paper you agree that animals are entitled to enjoy basic rights and freedoms.
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 inviolable and extends to the defense of the hostage. Therefore, society should choose to inflict harm on the wrongdoer and not the innocent victim. However, Hammurabi’s “eye for an eye” code coincides with torture to 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, the torture of a wrongdoer is justified because the wrongdoer gives up his/her right of self-defense after violateing 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 because “the right to self-defense…extends to the defense of another.” Bagaric and Clarke display three counterarguments that may arise to the acceptance of torture followed by the reasoning of why the counterarguments are futile. First, Bagaric and Clarke argue that accounts of torture will increase if society accepts torture. However, torture is already widespread. Second, the essay argues torture will dehumanize society. Though, favoring the interests of the wrongdoer over the innocent victim would dehumanize society greater. Finally, torturing may not always save an innocent life, yet given the evidence at the time we must act accordingly. These three arguments coincide with justified reasons to torture a criminal because the criminal gives up his/her right when victimizing innocent lives. Bagaric and Clarke furthermore, 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, there is a fear that the torturer will be dehumanized. However, doctors, parents, and prisons are not seen as criminals, yet they all inflict pain through surgery, spanking, and imprisoning.
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. In addition, 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.
ReplyDeleteAnimals, just like humans, develop a rational plan for their lives. Most humans, in their life plan, intend 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 another significant similarity 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. Another example of an animal with an extraordinary mind is the gorilla who has learned to speak over 2,000 words and can speak in complete sentences. An additional example is when parrots can learn words and phrases as well and respond to 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 should be some of the issues addressed by the basic rights animals need. Animals possess sentience and feel pain so they should be taken care of and treated kindly. Animals deserve the right to protection and shelter just like humans. Since animals are so similar to humans, they deserve the basic rights that provide them with the comforts that most humans enjoy.
Hundreds of animals are either extinct or on the verge of extinction. The few rights that animals currently have are based on their endangered status and how close to extinction they are. If all other animals do not receive the basic rights they deserve now we will just have to wait until all animals are on the verge of extinction or are already gone. Animals deserve basic rights because of their similarities to humans so they should receive them now so we do not have to wait until it’s too late and we live in a world without animals.
Animals are poor helpless victims of the American appetite. Americans attempt to suck up all the good parts of nature and leave the bare bones, expecting them to rejuvenate. Animals need some form of legal protection, but many people take this idea to far. In his essay “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven M. Wise, a specialist in animal-right law, argues that animals should be allowed the same basic rights as humans. Wise argues that animals with human-like characteristics should be given legal rights. However, his argument, that certain animals should be given equal rights, should be modified. All animals are entitled to protection from cruel and unusual behavior because they are similar to humans but incapable of protecting themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn his essay Wise argues that all creatures are entitled to “freedom, safety from torture and even life itself” because “animals have extraordinary minds.” Philosophers’ arguments for human’s rights come down to human’s abilities to reason, communicate, enforce justice and self-govern. Wise then goes on to argue that autonomy is an invalid characteristic since it “is tough to define.” Next, Wise argues that animals possess extraordinary minds on par or greater than that of a human toddler. Then he argues that because animals posses the human ability to reason, and feel, they should be given legal rights. Wise says, “they understand cause and effect…[and] act intentionally” and “form coalitions to limit the power of the alpha males.” He argues that the law needs to change to reflect modern times and knowledge because of the obvious parallels between a human’s and intelligent animal’s sense of justice and reasoning abilities.
Wise’s makes valid points; however, his argument is weakened by the fact that it is too broad and his examples do little to persuade the audience of the true harm inflicted upon animals. Autonomy is a weak argument for human superiority. Autonomy is the act of self-governing. While it is definitely true that American has a self-governing democratic-republic, where the people elect and contribute to the government, many other countries do not. For example, Cuba, an island-country in the Caribbean on miles away from the tip of Florida, is ruled by a communist dictatorship. A dictatorship strips people the right of political self-determination and autonomy. The people do not have autonomy, so according to the philosophers they do not deserve basic human legal rights. Indeed many governments in the world act as if their people do not posses basic human rights and horribly mistreat them. In Cuba people are forced to obey the government, and any who rise up will be severely punished. Clearly, autonomy is not a good indicator for who deserve legal rights. Autonomy is hard to define and many humans do not even meet this basic criterion. Therefore Wise is right in stating that although animals do not have self-rule, it is incorrect to surmise that they do not deserve basic legal rights.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are basic human rights which create all men equal 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 because of their ability to have humanistic qualities. Animals should be granted the basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because the qualities they possess are also what link men together. These basic rights that were once granted to only humans should now be extended to animals.
ReplyDeleteTo prove that animals deserve legal rights, Wise factors in the knowledge humans have now compared to what we knew 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. 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, is autonomy is justification enough for deciding if something deserves rights? Wise believes that although autonomy gives adequate reasoning for those deserving legal rights “it obviously isn’t necessary.” However, 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, all humans and non-humans have a sense of right and wrong. The preferable way for most humans to seek justice is through the court system but on the other hand, some people still use the phrase an eye for an eye as justification and 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.
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 inviolable and extends to the defense of the hostage. Therefore, society should choose to inflict harm on the wrongdoer and not the innocent victim. However, Hammurabi’s “eye for an eye” coincides with torture to be permissible in circumstances of the torturer punishing an individual who has taken an innocent life as hostage. Torture is permissible because the hostage is tortured by being a captive. Consequently, the torture of a wrongdoer is justified because the wrongdoer gives up his or her right of self-defense after violating 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 because “the right to self-defense…extends to the defense of another.” Bagaric and Clarke display three counterarguments that may arise to the acceptance of torture followed by the reasoning of why the counterarguments are futile. First, Bagaric and Clarke argue that accounts of torture will increase if society accepts torture. However, torture is already widespread. Second, the essay argues torture will dehumanize society. Although, favoring the interests of the wrongdoer over the innocent victim would dehumanize society greater. Finally, torturing may not always save an innocent life yet given the evidence at the time we must act accordingly. These three arguments coincide with justified reasons to torture a criminal because the criminal gives up his or her right when victimizing innocent lives. In addition to the three counterarguments, Bagaric and Clarke 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, there is a fear that the torturer will be dehumanized. However, doctors, parents, and prisons are not seen as criminals, yet they all inflict pain through surgery, spanking, and imprisoning.
The practice of torture is indeed widespread. According to Bagaric and Clarke, Amnesty International report 132 accounts of “torture and ill-treatment.” Torture arises in an attempt to save innocent lives, but it also occurs for unwarranted reasons. If the absolute ban on torture is lifted, the accounts of torture could be publically documented and not be “beneath the radar of accountability.” Publically reported cases of torture will draw attention to the rationale for such torture. Consequently, the public can decide if the torture is morally justified or if torture could have been avoided. Therefore, as criminals infringe the moral rights of victims, it should be permissible to torture the criminal “in order to save a life.” Currently, there are a sundry of terrorist threats across the world. If a bomb were to be placed in undisclosed location and the authorities were to apprehend the guilty individual. In order to save innocent lives, torture should be permissible.
ReplyDeleteThe essay argues that torture dehumanizes society once society believes the wrongdoer has the same rights as the innocent victim. However, saying that torture is always wrong and should be banned exempts the situations where innocent lives are influenced by “enormous amount of injustice and suffering.” Bagaric and Clarke argue that in certain situations torture is acceptable because the “immediacy of the situation.” However, torture should always be permissible when there is sufficient evidence that the wrongdoer has infringed the “self-defense” right of an innocent life. If society does not recognize the significance of justified torture, then the public will be approaching “moral nihilism” because everyone will go to extreme conditions to not infringe individual rights. Therefore, the controversy at Guantanamo Bay over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s alleged waterboarding torture shows the public that justified torture is an efficient way of protecting innocent lives. The Central Intelligence Agency knew that Khalid was a known associate of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization, al-Qaeda. After waterboaring, a torture technique, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to being the mastermind of September 11th among other terrorist attacks. Now, Khalid is under U.S custody in Guantanamo Bay where he cannot mastermind new acts of terrorism that affects mass numbers of innocent civilians.
Like concentration camps, factory farm animals receive appalling housing and living conditions. These “living” facilities that animals are forced to call home are crammed, unsanitary, and censored from the public. Wise found that “10 billion more [animals] will be raised in factories so crowded that they’re unable to turn around, and then killed for food.” Being cooped up in an overpopulated cage or pen leaves animals wallowing in their own feces along with the corpses of those who could not withstand the horrid conditions. Moreover, the plight of the Nazi concentration camps were in similar condition and what people saw as grotesque and wrong at these camps is happening to animals every day. If animals are used for stock, then they should be given the right to lead a natural life for as long as possible before it is cut short. By allowing them the natural benefits of free range and organic feed, it may act as payment for having to give their lives to sustain humans. Since majority of the public’s food does not come from organic, free-range farms, where does it come from? Most likely the population’s food is coming from a factory that is dirtier than a toilet, so they might as well grab a fork and eat out of the porcelain throne where it may be cleaner. Our country has forgotten where our food comes from as well as how it is truly produced and manufactured. Today, the sustenance provided by animals originates from inhumane slaughtering houses and industrial farms. What happened to the connection and understanding between man and creature? To see animals on respectively the same level as humans, a natural balance is achieved.
ReplyDeleteThe natural sustenance and beauty from animals should be used with respect and mercy and a way receive proper treatment of these animals is for them to have some type of legal rights. Today, hunting is nothing but a sport to most huntsman and observation is nothing but a profit to most companies. Wise also found reports from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that “hundreds of millions [of animals] will be shot by hunters or exploited in rodeos, circuses, and roadside zoos.” It has been found that hunters will only hunt animals for the thrill and not for betterment of their survival. Specifically, when a certain animals “season” is not available, these people will kill whatever they get a shot at and will leave it to die since it is illegal to harvest that particular animal. Could this method of hunting and waste be considered murder? Animals are not things or trophies; they are living beings with families and traditions. With rights, these animals will be saved from a disrespectful death. 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.
However, there must be a connection between myself and the animal along with an understanding as to why I must take a life to keep my own.
ReplyDeleteProtection should be granted against oppression to those who do not have a voice to protest corrupted treatment. Demoralizing animals in profitable showings is not the way to observe such grand creatures. Animals should not be treated poorly and given appalling living conditions for human entertainment. Moreover, the viewing of animals should be sought as an educational source with them being as comfortable as possible. The right to proper, natural living should be given respectfully, especially since they have been taken away from their natural environment or born in captivity so they do not even know where they originate. Preferably animals should take back their free will and roam without restriction in sanctuaries and reserves, such as The Wilds in southeast Ohio. This wildlife preserve may not be the natural environment to some of Africa’s famous inhabitants, but this place grants its’ residents the ability to roam instead of pacing in a cubicle dwelling at a zoo or circus. Also, The Wilds provides the public with an opportunity to respectfully see exotic animals without oppression. Contrary to the sanctuary residence, the brutal life of circuses and rodeos could be seen as equivalent to human prostitution or slavery. 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. The right to a proper living should be available to such majestic creatures that suffer for human entertainment.
For what animals have to go through in a human dominated world, they should be served legal rights on a silver platter. They should not have to suffer the hardships they are put through by bigots throughout the world, but instead seen as individuals with ambitions to survive and thrive. As stated by Wise, “everything that makes existence worthwhile- like freedom, safety from torture, and even life itself- has turned on whether the law classifies one as a person or thing.” In conclusion, would it be right or worth existing to disrespect another human being, give them poor living space, hold them captive, abuse or murder them, or throw them into prostitution? Then living beings that play a major role in our survival should not be treated like dirt either.