DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
PHI1630 Contemporary Ethical Problems - Shanghai Summer 2019
HTML https://phi1630shanghai19.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 41--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Chris Wang yipeng
Date: July 17, 2019, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Does animal have rights? - Chris Wang
"A common argument against recognition of the rights of farms
animals takes the following forms. Since these animals would not
be exist except for the economic interest that farmer has in
raising them, his economic interests should determine how they
oughted ti be treated" (Regan,458) I my opinion, I personally
don't believe animal have rights. First, how do you determine
rights. I believe the right are made from human beings to be as
if one had experienced it oneself. It should be a special form
of sympathetic. Therefore, when most people say how little
chickens were born and crushing in to meat balls they fell
sympathy for them, and believe animals should have rights.
Animals eat animals, human eat other animals. I do not agree
with other's thoughts of animals should be equally treated as
human. But as a human, I do feel sympathy for animals as well,
people should eat meat and need meat. Not everyone would become
a vegetarian. We should not make it be extreme. Have some kind
of animals undter suitable treatment is some kind of progress we
have done, and some are set a laws. There are animals protection
charities. Dogs and cats are treated as they should. One of the
other debating at now days is about animals testing. medical and
psychological. I understand it is unfair for the animal to try
everything for us, for we humans. But at the day when you or one
of your love get sick and need that medical achievement. All
these aninmals suffered and dead become meaningful, although
they won't be remembered. Animal rights are important and need
to be considered, human development is more important.
#Post#: 42--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: xzz0427
Date: July 17, 2019, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Some people say that an 8-month-old fetus has survived from the
mother, so he or she is already an individual human being.
In such cases, should he or she is considered a threat to him or
her if his or her mother does not want him or her to induce
themselves? For my own belief, I think no one can enter my house
without my permission.
The uterus, can also be regarded as the property of the mother,
she owns this "palace", not because the fetus grew in this
"palace", the fetus is the "house owner", the fetus is in fact
only a tenant. According to this logic, I have always believed
that the tenant (the fetus) did not enter into a valid contract
with the "house owner" to pay any pound of gold, in which he or
she reside, but with the mother's acquiescence, and when the
mother no longer acquiesced, he or she has no right to stay.
I've always believed that abortion is not what I believe in. And
now I'm in a dilemma that will be illustrated by a simulated
situation: a stranger, he's in my house, I can make sure that he
would not harm me, but he eat my food and keep staying in the
house - and that's not my will, and my will is to get him out of
my property as soon as possible. At this time, there is no doubt
that, as a self-possessor, I have reason to say that he has
violated my private property and that I have the right to let
him stop the abuse against me immediately. However, there was
one way to get him to stop the abuse and only to kill him. It
just like the situation of abortion.
Siyi Qiu
#Post#: 43--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: libo
Date: July 17, 2019, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the writer, and I think to become a vegetarian does
not mean give the animal rights. We live in human society, but
also in the nature. We are just on the top of food chain, thus
it’s our nature to eat other animal, it is something inherent.
We should respect every creature, in the same time, obey our
nature. That is share the same right with every creature.
#Post#: 44--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Lingxiu Ji
Date: July 17, 2019, 8:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm replying on Unmuseder's comment #28 on animal having rights.
First, she suggested that animal should have equal rights as
human since both are animals, and being vegetarian is
obligatory. However, while the human is biologically considered
as animals, they surpassed other animals on aspects like the
sense of reason and justice. Such superior abilities make the
human “born out of" the animal and become something else, say,
some species who can debate in this forum about whether animals
should have rights. Her second point states that rather than an
immediate and acute change, we should bring the idea out and
planted it into society. I agree with this approach while
respectfully disagree with the idea. We shouldn't expect any
rapid changes in the higher end of the industry chain since it
will make a huge impact on the economy and rather than making
animals having rights, it will make many humans suffer. But,
even if this idea got out and many people converted to this
idea. Meat-eating will never stop. Without enough supply of
meat, blakc market will emerge from the need of people who want
to eat meet. While the society lose the industry of living
stalk, it encourage illegal production and we need to spend
resources to stop it. The best way is to maintain the current
scale of the live stalking industry. Furthermore, she pointed
out that animal testing is immoral. However, according to
utilitarianism and Kant's duty theory, animal testing is
actually moral. While an animal can cost very little, the huge
benefits of testing new technology on animals out weight any
cost of animals. So many human lives is saved from drugs
approved useful on animal tests. Without such experiments,
scientists will only perform an experiment on a real human. Now,
that's real immorality. According to Kant, we reach a similar
result. If every scientist perform animal testing right now and
nothing changes, there is no break-down of reasons what so ever.
Also, animals cannot be considered as rational agent since they
don't have the abilities to reason and justice. So we, the
human, don't have to treat them as human, thus performing tests
on human is immoral, but on animals is moral. While she argues
that if animals are the ruler of the earth, we are not going to
be happy. But happiness can only be experienced by a rational
being. I'm sure if other animals is the ruler of the earth, we,
human will not feel a thing because they are intelligent and we
are not rational. I would like to add a point in the end. If
animals have rights, does laws apply to them? If they have
rights, can they "murder" each other for food? Should human
prevent them from killing each other in the wild and provide
them food to keep them alive? I'm sure that Unmusedst disagree
with such ideas.
#Post#: 46--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: yeqiyang
Date: July 17, 2019, 9:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe that there will be any black market of meat will
appear cause meat is such an object could be easily acquired
thus will not be any rapid change in the price which will lead
to the black market.
#Post#: 47--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: yeqiyang
Date: July 17, 2019, 9:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the opinion that the right of animal and
development of human should be both considered and evaluated.
Nowadays, since human may come up with a way to preserve
animals' right and get the necessary nutrition from animal at
the same time, there could be the coexist of both ideas.
#Post#: 49--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: fjontk
Date: July 18, 2019, 12:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Baitianyu link ---
>
> Do animals have rights
>
> The author in “immoral and moral uses of animals” argue about
the moral questions about how human treat to animals. He asks
questions such as can we do immoral things to animals or do
animals have rights? He first tries to consider the problem from
rationality and ability to communicate. One opinion is
“rationality and the ability to communicate meaningfully with
others are the most commonly mentioned differentiating
characteristics.” Since human can think, talk and act rationally
which animals can’t, animals should not be considered as human
and have rights. Based on this argument, we can treat animals
like nonliving objects. However, the argument also has some
disadvantages. “The trouble is that not all human beings are
rational.” People who have mental problems, brain-damage human
and even three-year-old child all are irrational, and should we
treat them not as human beings?
>
> The second argument is based on Aristotle which is “Man’s
tyranny over animals is natural because his superiority as an
animal determines for him the dominant position in the natural
scale of things.” Just like what write in the Bible, God
approves us to take control all living animals. If we give up
the dominance over animals, we will deny our nature. The problem
with this argument is that we avoid slavery and child labor, not
because they are unnatural, but because slaves and children have
their own will. So, do animals have their own will and our act
to them is immoral?
>
> Baitianyu Johnny Bai
>
--- End Quote ---
I am replying to the argument Johnny made on animal rights.
According to Johnny's reply, "Since human can think, talk and
act rationally which animals can’t, animals should not be
considered as human and have rights." However, I want to argue
whether human is the only individual that have rights in the
world. The definition of right, according to the dictionary, is
the qualities that together constitute the idea of moral
approval. What Johnny imply in the reply is that human is the
only being which can have rights. On one hand, I will agree that
only human have the ability of thinking and reasoning,
therefore, only human can realize the idea of rights. I also
agree that human created the idea of rights, and only human is
able to define the word "right". However, depending on these
consideration, once human want to give animal rights, animal can
also be considered to have rights.
Many people have pets and established a special relationship
with animals. Due to sympathy (which only human can have), this
kind of relationship is not only with their pets, but with many
other animals. Protecting animals is protecting human emotion.
This is one of the basic reasons why animal should have rights.
#Post#: 51--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Qi Wang
Date: July 19, 2019, 12:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Baitianyu link ---
>
> Do animals have rights
>
> The author in “immoral and moral uses of animals” argue about
the moral questions about how human treat to animals. He asks
questions such as can we do immoral things to animals or do
animals have rights? He first tries to consider the problem from
rationality and ability to communicate. One opinion is
“rationality and the ability to communicate meaningfully with
others are the most commonly mentioned differentiating
characteristics.” Since human can think, talk and act rationally
which animals can’t, animals should not be considered as human
and have rights. Based on this argument, we can treat animals
like nonliving objects. However, the argument also has some
disadvantages. “The trouble is that not all human beings are
rational.” People who have mental problems, brain-damage human
and even three-year-old child all are irrational, and should we
treat them not as human beings?
>
> The second argument is based on Aristotle which is “Man’s
tyranny over animals is natural because his superiority as an
animal determines for him the dominant position in the natural
scale of things.” Just like what write in the Bible, God
approves us to take control all living animals. If we give up
the dominance over animals, we will deny our nature. The problem
with this argument is that we avoid slavery and child labor, not
because they are unnatural, but because slaves and children have
their own will. So, do animals have their own will and our act
to them is immoral?
>
> Baitianyu Johnny Bai
>
--- End Quote ---
I think some points are wrong in his arguments. Rationality and
the ability to communicate meaningfully with others are the most
commonly mentioned differentiating characteristics. You can’t
apply this to determine whether animals have rights. First of
all, this idea was conducted by people. We can’t apply this to
all animals and make it a standard to judge other animals. Also,
I think animals have rationality and they could communicate with
their own spices. I have seen a lot of examples about animals
which show they have rationality. For example, some hunters used
to hunt goats for earning money. They forced goats to the cliff.
At that time, hunters thought goats could not run away at all.
However, goats made a very different decision. They chose to
jump across the cliff. The old goats will sacrifice themselves
as a place for other young goat to jump. They did not
communicate with each other and soon make actions. The old goats
just give the opportunities to young goats. Young goats have
more abilities to make contributions to the species. From this
story, we can figure out that goats are rational. Also, you can
not deny their abilities to communicate at all. We just do not
understand at all. It is same we could not understand them.
#Post#: 52--------------------------------------------------
Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
DIR By: unmusedsr
Date: July 19, 2019, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bobbyfangxingjie link ---
>
> On page 282-291, the author Jeffery Reiman talks about the
folly of capital punishment. He believes that since capital
punishment costs more than life in prison in America, by
rationality, people should all choose life long imprisonment
instead of death penalty. “Thus, his arguments goes, we must
follow common sense, which teaches that the higher the cost of
something, the fewer people would choose it.” (Abelson 282).
However, although life imprisonment costs less than capital
punishment, sometimes capital punishment are still needed for
certain people.
> Recently, there was a famous news about a series killer in
China, that aroused a lot of public concerns. A few years ago,
he was put in prison because he raped a girl, who was abou ten
years old. For that, he was put in prison for ten years.
However, since he performed well inside the prison, he was
released after five years. Then, a few weeks later, he raped and
killed another young girl. After that, he confessed his crime to
the police. If he did not do that, he would be put a life long
imprisonment. However, since he confessed honestly, he received
a reduce in his penalty. After several years, he came out from
prison again and people think he would not do that kind of thing
again. Then, surprisingly, he raped another girl and kill her.
> From this situation, we could find out that sometimes death
penalty is needed for some people like this. They do not care
about imprisonment, and they just want to do what they want, and
death penalty is for this kind people.
>
--- End Quote ---
I totally agree with your point on capital punishment. I have
also followed this news for a long time and each time it makes
me feel sad and upset. A lot of people are still debating about
whether a country should have death penalty or not, in my own
point of view, I think every country should have death penalty
since life-long imprisonment does not have the same effect to
the criminal as the capital punishment. As Jeffery Reiman stated
in the reading, he thinks death penalty costs more than
life-long imprisonment in the United States, thus people should
all choose the life-long imprisonment instead. However,
according to different national conditions, his claims may not
be suitable in every case. Moreover, the Chinese government did
apply similar approach as Reiman and even gave this criminal
chance to behave himself several times, but the result was not
expected. Thus, capital punishment is needed for people like
this, especially the ones with psychological disorders. In this
case, I think death penalty is the best solution. The inhumane
behaviour disobeys any moral ethics in the world, if Mill is
viewing in this case, based on the utilitarianism, his behaviour
may satisfy his own need but disobeys the universal principle of
moral standard.
shuran lin
#Post#: 53--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Xiaoyu Zhang
Date: July 19, 2019, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
About the topic of animal rights, it is a social movement
initiated by human beings to protect animals from being treated
as possessions by human beings. The aim of this social trend of
thought is not only to strive for the right of animals to be
treated more kindly, but also to advocate that animals should
enjoy the basic "rights" in spirit. For example, the right to
freedom from torture is the same as human beings. In other
words, animals should be treated as human beings, not just as
human property or tools, whether at the legal or spiritual
level.
Animal rights critics argue that animals can not be regarded as
enjoying spiritual rights because they can not discuss social
contracts or make moral judgments, can not take into account the
rights of others, or even have no concept of rights at all. Just
like what Ruth Cigman said in "Animals Do Not Have Rights", that
we should consider the kinds of obligations we have towards a
creature (human, animal), and the correlative rights to which he
or she is entitled. The way I understand that idea is that they
(those critics) think that because only human beings are
responsible, thus it is only human beings that should enjoy
their rights.
In my own view, I don't really think that all animal should have
their own rights. For having rights, I think there should be the
ability of rational thinking, therefore, I think animals with
perception (self-knowing) should be treated differently from
other primitive animals. Only animals with perception ,or
stronger self-awareness, have control over their own lives and
bodies, regardless of what humans see as their uses We cannot
exclude all animals from the moral system and we do need to
think about the real purpose of animal rights.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page