Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Where do we draw the line?
In the articles we have read in class, such as "A Change of Heart about Animals" and "Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and "Dignity" to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?", have changed my mind on the issue of animal rights. I am the last person anyone would call an "animal person", so when I saw the headlines of these articles I was a little uneasy. However, once I read "A Change of Heart about Animals" by Jeremy Rifkin, my mind began to reconsider. I do believe animals deserve to be treated humanely, because it is proven that animals feel pain and stress. No animal should be beaten, starved, etc... Elephants even have the mental capacity to mourn the loss of their children. However, the article "Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and "Dignity" to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?" was not as convincing. In paragraph 4, a Primatologist said that "I do think we have special obligations to the great apes as our closest relatives, but if we give rights to apes, what would be the compelling reason not to give rights to monkeys, dogs, rats, and so on?", a question in which I don't really know the answer too. The real question is where do we draw the line? Where do we say that it's to much?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I honestly believe that it isn't possible to draw a line. The reason is that all animals are loved by someone whether it's a dog, elephant, or even an insect. There are many people in this world who like many different animals, so if someone were to fight for animal rights for one animal, then somebody else will come and fight for another. I don't think animals should be wrongfully treated, but I believe that it's best to not give any animals rights beacause there are many people who have many different views about animals and about which ones should get rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you one hundred percent. If we give the freedom to one species what will stop people from wanted to give ALL animal rights? I think that we do need to find a commonground because animals do have particular feelings that tend to make me more compassionate in a sense because now I feel like I should feel guilty for wanting a hamburger or salmon for dinner. The way I see it is it's human nature. We feel the need to do whatever it takes to survive but we shouldn't be harming animals in great numbers because humans will then be at fault if they become extinct.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, but as Savannah said it is not very possible. There would be all different types of animal lovers trying to push for rights for different animals. There should be a set of rights for all animals, but you can give one species more rights and you can't give another less. Although these animals are intelligent and have feelings, they are not humans and because of this do not deserve the same rights humans do. Just because they aren't humans doesn't mean they deserve no rights at all.
ReplyDeleteAnimals are animals. They don't need rights but they should be used only if it helps humans. Like everyone who has commented above said, you can't give rights to certain animals and leave the rest out. Just like humans, animals eat other animals so why should we humans feel bad? Like we learned awhile ago in biology, "survival of the fittest". Apparently we happened to be "fit" enough to survive in this world.If animals really had a problem with us(humans) don't you think they would have began fighting back? I agree with Desiree when she said it would be our fault if they become extinct. Meaning we shouldn't kill just to kill. But overall it's apart of the circle of life. We kill to eat, they mate and reproduce. Our relationship with animals is fine the way it is.
ReplyDelete