Category: Animal Ethics

Introduction

The California Milk Producers Advisory Board (CMAB) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are engaged in legal action. PETA is a group that promotes public awareness of animal rights issues. CMAB is a food division whose mission is to encourage the use of dairy products and California milk. These two groups present the evidence that supports their positions in an effort to justify their behavior. PETS blames CMAP for false advertisement and violation of the rights of animals. The three issues that are important in the context of legal reasoning are justice, lack of clarity, and policy.

Discussion

Regarding the first issue, justice should be investigated, looking at whether the claims made by PETA are fair or not. According to PETA, California cows are milked continuously during their pregnancies, and their calves are then put in crates and marketed as veal. The cows are said to dwell in feces-soaked dirt lots with little vegetation. Therefore, the advertisement that states that Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California is false. The universe and frame of the issue is in the state of California. However, there is no factual evidence that there was a false statement from CMAB, meaning that PETA does not have sufficient evidence to be against CMAB. Yet, the significance of the issue is that the case shows how public policies can help a state promote its economy and how external organizations can influence the companys profitability and brand image.

The issue of the lack of clarity is presented by the ambiguity of interpretation when developing legal reasoning. As such, the court did not properly analyze the case and applied the states unfair competition law. This distorted the essence of the case as PETA intended to bring attention to the state of cattle contentment and bring change. However, due to a lack of clarity on their side, the case was interpreted in a way that was fitting the defendants defense, and as a result, it was ruled that public entities such as milk boards are not subject to false advertisement suits.

Finally, the case addressed the lack of policy that would contribute to the case. A policy is created to accomplish specific objectives, but a law is created to bring justice to the community. Policies are created in the name of the people, and laws are for the people. A set of regulations that direct any government or organization are referred to as policies. The courts are responsible for carrying out laws, as such, both public policies can influence the decision of the court. Depending on whether the court is satisfied with the policies, its decision can be dictated by this level of satisfaction.

Conclusion

An example of a policy that would impact the ruling of the court can be taken from the meat farming industry. Inspection of cattle prior to slaughter and inspection of meat products following slaughter are also governed by federal regulations. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA examines animals, slaughterhouses, and meat products. FSIS often concentrates on food-borne infections brought on by bacteria like E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria when it comes to food safety (Michael, 2020). By inspecting slaughterhouses, evaluating animal health before slaughter, doing postmortem exams of symptomatic animals as well and routine examinations of killed animals to assure product quality and safety, the FSIS also protects against diseases like BSE. Such a policy would make the court review the case and address the issue of poor treatment of animals by CMAB.

Reference

Michael, M. (2020). Regulatory Authority and Challenges from the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

Killing animals for food

The fact that there is a long tradition involving the slaughter of animals for food does not justify the killing of animals. In a similar manner, one would argue that the fact that Africans had been held in slavery as a tradition did not stop their liberation. A utilitarian argument justifies the removal of pain in the process of killing the animals. A nonconsequentialist will propose the abolition of slaughtering animals for food. The analysis examines the consequence of abolition and the removal of pain as an alternative.

The utilitarian argues that man has the alternative of eliminating pain in the slaughtering process. However, there is the challenge of removing pain without creating the potential to harm mans physiological processes. Mankind would need some chemicals to eliminate pain during the slaughtering of animals. There is no better method because in hospitals chemicals are used in anesthesia.

The question that most people would consider is whether man would be willing to consume meat knowing that chemicals have been used to reduce pain. In hospitals, it is done once. Meat is consumed frequently in a persons lifetime. The impact of the chemicals on the human body can be unpleasant and unwanted. Better alternatives to reducing pain in this manner are rare. The best human beings can do is to make the process to last only a few minutes and to use the sharpest blades that cause the least resistance.

The nonconsequentialist proposal for a complete ban on killing animals would be difficult to enforce in its entirety. What comes into mind is that lions kill other animals for food. If they are denied their kill, they may starve to death.

Killing other animals is cruelty. In contrast, cruelty can be described in relative terms when there is a valid need for survival. Stopping human beings to feed on other animals and allowing lions to hunt may not prevent the suffering of animals. It also shows that the suffering of animals cannot be considered in absolute terms.

The consequences of a complete ban on slaughtering animals for food will be extensive. One consequence is that animals that are kept only for meat may become an endangered species. People will stop rearing animals because most of them are kept for economic benefits. Those that produce milk may still be reared until denying the calf part of the milk is considered animal abuse. The end result may be a situation where it is better not to have them at all than to have them with the intention of killing them.

The impact on animals kept for profit is unknown when they cannot be used to generate profits because of the ban. Where do animals kept for profit go when a complete ban is enforced? Keeping them without pursuing profits is uneconomical. Forcing people to keep them because they already had them may result into massively larger protests than protests for animal rights.

Some of these species cannot survive in the wild because of their long-term association with man. It makes the consideration of an animal in its free state a weaker argument in such a situation. Animals in their free state is a weaker argument because some animals in their free state attack each other.

Gathering the animals in a reserve will also result in large numbers that cannot rely on the food available in the reserves. The reason is that keeping animals without the balance of nature soon results in overcrowding. It shows that the consequences of a complete ban will be unfavorable for both human beings and the animals.

Pains and suffering are the basic consideration among all warm-blooded animals. Many philosophers agree that animals are experiencing pain. In cases where there is no proof to state otherwise, animals should be treated as if they experience pain. Slaughtering of animals causes pain and suffering to the animals. As a result, man should use other alternatives.

There is the alternative of using proteins from leguminous plants. Animals are mainly slaughtered for proteins and the taste of meat. Food crops offer alternatives to proteins. However, they fail to provide a substitute to the taste of meat. On the other hand, the taste of meat can be considered pleasure. It is less significant compared to the suffering of animals being slaughtered.

My perception is that the banning of butcheries is likely to cause more harm than good. The impact cannot be assessed completely. For example, cutting off meat supply may cause a high demand on beans and similar products. The prices of the products will rise. The products are the main source of protein for people who cannot afford meat.

If they become unaffordable for people with low income, low protein intake may have an impact in their bodily functions. However, in the long run people will divert resources for the production of alternatives.

Why put more weight on how animals are going to die than how human beings will live if animals are not slaughtered for food? Prolonged suffering may be considered cruelty. Provided that animals are not kept in a manner that causes suffering and their slaughter is reduced to a few minutes of pain, animals for slaughter should not be banned.

Animals for experiments

The basic consideration of suffering leads to the conclusion that using animals for experiments is based on discrimination against animals. When the question is asked whether one would be willing to perform an experiment on an orphaned child, it becomes clear that it is unlikely to happen. The procedure is unpleasant to the experimenters and the human population. The child has a connection to mankind, even though he may not have a relative.

The intrinsic value of a human being may be considered high-sounding, but it has a real impact on human thinking. One may consider the plans that the child might have that some animals lack. However, some animals also show indication of having plans by building their habitat.

The property that the child may have when he becomes an adult may be considered. Animals ownership of property cannot be confirmed. The worth of an adult human being and the worth of an adult animal are greatly different. To solve the puzzle of whether animals should be used for experiments, alternatives and consequences of not undertaking the experiments are used.

One of the arguments raised for using animals in experiments is that they help to make millions of people happy or cured from certain diseases. Consider the extent of damage when a child is used. When a child is used, the entire human population may be upset if the information is shared.

When an animal is used in isolation, the other animals are unlikely to be upset. Only a single animal suffers. That is only true if the other animals do not become upset when one of their own is missing. Using a single animal in an experiment does not cause extensive damage as using an orphaned child. Using a child violates a great human populations sentience by upsetting the experimenters as well as any other human being who is informed.

Another argument is to examine whether experimenters have an alternative to using animals. The only possible alternative is to use human beings. Human beings usually volunteer to become part of experiments after it has passed the initial tests in animals. It will look improper to put more weight on an animal with limited interests than a human being whose rights can be violated in many ways. The argument of moral standing is that each interest has to be considered in separation.

Human beings have many interests that using a single human being violates many interests of the individual and those related to him. Human beings cannot be an alternative. Human beings have no other option than to use animals in the initial stages of experiments. The matter of alternatives also rules out the matter of using experiments for pleasure. Man should not experiment with animals for pleasure because there are not compelled by need.

The consequence of not undertaking the experiments is that new medicine cannot be sold if it has not been tested. Man will have to take the drugs untested or die of certain diseases. How many people will be willing to see their relatives and friends die because animals cannot be used for experiments? Cruelty occurs when animals are caused to suffer unnecessarily. In some experiments, pain is reduced by treating them as if they were human beings.

In most experiments, the effect of the drug under study is unknown. The experimenter is not aware of the amount of pain that the animal goes through as a result of the drug or chemical. The animal has limited ways to express the amount of pain it is going through. Experiments violate the basic consideration of pain and suffering that all animals need to be given.

I think that animals should be used only for compelling experiments. The main reason is that man does not have an alternative to the usage of animals rather than using himself.

The consequence of failing to use animals in experiments is that new medicine to treat animals cannot be guaranteed. As a result, more people and animals may experience a lot of pain when they resolve to use untested medicine. The utilitarian concept of reducing pain is also unlikely because the main experiment is to examine whether it can cause injury and pain to animals.

Crowding animals for profits

The utilitarian argument is that animals should be provided with whatever they need so that they do not suffer. The nonconsequentialist argument is that animals should be given an environment similar to their natural environment. Solving the dilemma uses the same concept as the other two problems. One checks whether there are better alternatives and the impact of applying the alternatives to the lives of mankind.

The crowding of animals reduces the cost of meat. If animals were raised in spacious environments as their natural habitat, the cost of raising them will be very high. Very few people would be able to afford them on a regular basis. The issue of space does not affect only animals.

Human beings as well do not find enough space to do all the things they would want to do for pleasure. In a similar manner, the birds are denied space to bathe in soil. The nonconsequentialist argument that requires animals to be given enough space similar to their natural environment appears weaker because in their natural environment the animals attack each other for food.

A utilitarian argument is that animals should be crowded provided that they do not suffer. There is difficulty in drawing the line on the suffering caused by overcrowding. Some animals seem to indicate that they are not suffering. However, denying animals the space to turn around may be considered a source of suffering. Provided that the crowding does not result in suffering, the animals should be reared for profit.

Crowding animals violates their interests. It violates the fact that animals are sentient. As in the case of birds, they would like to perch on twigs and bathe in soil. The nonconsequentialist argument is that no being should deny another the right to live without suffering.

My perception is that the crowding of animals makes meat affordable to most people. However, there is a certain level of overcrowding that should not be allowed. Animals that need sunlight should be allowed to have it as much as they need food. Any economic interest that leads man to make animals suffer and has an alternative should be banned.

Overcrowding animals is not necessary for human survival. Giving the animals a little more space to allow them turn around will not make the cost of meat unaffordable. Animals should be provided with enough space to eat and rest. The cost of meat may rise, but it will still be affordable. However, to allow them enough space as their natural environment may appear economically unviable.

Historical Context and Prevalence of Animal Testing

Is it morally right to progress in health and medicine? Would killing an animal with society’s own bare hands be right? Animal testing is when a scientific experiment is undergone by an animal that might cause them pain or suffering. Experiments go back to the Ancient Greeks with Aristotle, a well-known Greek philosopher, and Erasistratus who is known for being an anatomist and physician. In the United States alone, over ten million animals are used for testing, education, and research. About 60% of the animals tested are used for testing products and biomedical research. Most of the animals used are mice and rats. Ever turn on the television and see an advertisement for the latest shampoo or soap just to realize that hundreds if not thousands of animals had to partake in experiments to assure the safety of the product. It has become a worldwide problem that bothers a majority of the world. Physicians and scientists believe that animals have little intelligence which means that immoral and moral rights do not apply to them. One of the heated arguments, animal research, has both its necessities and dreadfulness; however, alternatives may be essential.

The Ethical Dilemma: Animal Rights vs. Scientific Progress

The continuing debate over whether animal research is essential or ultimately unethical. Is the killing of twenty to fifty million animals worth it? Scientists claim that it is justly to use millions of animals for the prime purpose of research and information that might better the medical world. Researchers believe that creatures die so that humans get a greater grasp and comprehension of diseases and health issues. However, a group of activists is suggesting against the use of animals which is considered a social problem. This started the tension between researchers and activists over the topic. Opinions on the matter vary. Some find it necessary, and alternatives do not have the full impact that a living creature has. On the other hand, advocates say to cut the number of lab animals used. Animal welfare activists proclaimed that the “suffering or death” of the animal should not be allowed when being tested (source 1 1). Even though the topic is controversial, it may be mandatory to test on animals for human safety. Although laws have not been placed to prohibit or ban animal testing or animal research, the practice is regulated. Animal abuse or cruelty is never legal and criminal laws are placed because of that reason including research. The development of cures and vaccines was thanks to animals, but that does not make it ethical and morally just. Barbara Orlan’s book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, states that sixty percent of all animals are used for testing products. Many people view animals as loyal friends while others view them necessary to research advancement. Research has led to technological advances such as new techniques for doing surgery and devices in the medical world. The animals are researched in places such as universities, laboratories, and facilities which is different from research on the animal’s habitat. The majority of biologists and organizations promote testing. A poll was issued to 3.748 scientists by the Pew Research Center and found that 89% favored animal research. The anti-vivisection movement has tried to assure the safety and protection of animals; however, animal rights movements caused millions of dollars of damage to research facilities due to “intruders set afire” laboratories at university campuses (Belleme 39).

Legal Regulations and Ethical Considerations in Animal Research

Animal research is very dreadful to both humans and animals. It is extremely wasteful to use test animals. The US drug industry “invests $50 billion per year” on research with little to no real results (source 3 13). The drugs approved by the FDA seemed to not help everyone with only fifty-nine new medicines approved every year. The results are not exceedingly positive. For instance, positive drug results seen in animals result in a 90% fail rate in humans. Testing drugs on animals with a close relation to humans does not offer much insight. Drug failure can lead to tremendous harm than good such as a drug that was said to treat arthritis caused thousands of heart attacks and deaths even though it showed effective results in animal testing. Animals do not get diseases that humans do like Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and types of cancer which should be taken into consideration. Cosmetics is another key issue as the substances need to be tested. Some animals were forced to consume toxic chemicals namely the L.D. 50 lethal doses which led the way to the deaths of fifty percent of animals. In 1981, undercover activists documented the treatment of monkeys in laboratories. The outcome was horrendous. The living conditions of the monkeys were hideous and had no veterinary care. Tom Regan, a philosophy professor, states that “Animals have a basic moral right.”This research approach is flawed and wastes time and money with little to no useful results. Researchers are seen “redefining previous work” or dividing a problem into “multiple parts” to keep an endless number of experiments (source 5 26). This delays potential discoveries. For example, a drug called Pfizer showed little to no great payoff result; however, once a scientist suggested it be tested on humans, it began to show tremendous results. In today’s world, it is best to outlook the older methods and adapt to new technology.

The Limitations and Failures of Animal Testing in Medical Research

It is found necessary to do research on animals to ensure the safety of humans. Scientists consider animals as better subjects due to their lifespan which is why it is imperative to use animals and not humans. For example, mice typically live for two to three years giving researchers the time needed to study the effects of possible treatments over the course of a few years. This led to a great deal of life-saving discoveries. The polio vaccine and smallpox were originally tested on animals before being tested on humans which are “no longer major health threats” giving way to a new medical world (Jacobson 28). Another experiment was the removal of the pancreas led to the insulin drug saving the lives of diabetics. The animals also benefit from it. Since testing was done, vaccines for diseases such as rabies, hepatitis virus, and anthrax have been discovered. Endangered species were helped in the process like the black-footed ferret, koalas, and California condor. Using a minimum number of animals for research is something to bargain with. In the United States alone, the consumption of millions of chickens, cattle, and more is a portion of the animals researched. The similarity between animal subjects and humans is relatively similar. For instance, chimpanzees “share 99%” of human DNA which is much closer than other animals (source 2 7). Even religion allows humans to dominate over animals. It states in the Bible Genesis 1:26 “God said… let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth.”Medical researchers find it crucial to have animal experiments to get a broader idea of diseases like cancer. Millions of people have cancer and in the last decade, the United States spent six billion dollars for potential cures. Dr. John Bailer of Harvard’s School of Public Health says, “That shows why we are worried.”This is why various organizations promote research on animals.

Advancements and Successes: The Role of Animals in Medical Breakthroughs

Alternatives to animal research must be placed. Since technology is progressing rapidly, researchers developed micro devices that imitate human organs which can determine the responses our organs make. In the twentieth century, computers are able to model the human body more accurately than animal testing. A non-sentient material that resembles actual skin. An example is the Eyetex which resembles an eye a “synthetic material” that is nontransparent unless it is damaged (Dunnuck 46). The Eyetex can help to save the eyes of future animals and humans. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) wants to decrease animal suffering and refine research programs. The HSUS suggests plans on improving the future of animals. Vitro experiments are a great way to gain data without harming an animal. Vitro experiments use “human cells and tissues” which assure the safety of the animal and acquire better data (source 4 20). The animals are cared for by veterinarians and specialists. This will ensure the well-being of the animals as well as positive results. If animals are not taken care of, laws have been placed to guarantee an animal’s safety. The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) has a daily consensus on the general rules and requires inspections from veterinarians. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee have to give permission for research and funds can only be distributed by the United States Public Health Service. The government has established programs like the American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research which seeks to use fewer funds for research. The American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research even rewards those who make major improvements in research. Congress has taken action and the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act (ISLAA) was later passed to prevent experimentation. Martha McSally, a representative, introduced the Humane Cosmetics Act to help slow down or stop animal usage in cosmetic industries. Cosmetic companies have sought alternatives such as a pamphlet by The Body Shop that uses ingredients from nature like bananas and nuts.

Exploring Alternatives: The Future of Research Without Animal Testing

One of the heated arguments, animal research, has both its necessities and dreadfulness; however, alternatives may be essential. Animal research has its pros and cons which makes it an intensely hard subject to latch onto. Some support the purpose of it well others despise its existence. The dispute on whether experimentation on animals is morally just or obligatory in today’s world. Countless people find research on animals unnecessary and a downside. The ethical approach should be taken into account. It should not be taken lightly that millions of animals are dying without a plausible reason. On the other hand, people find it a requirement and should be considered the reason for medical advancements in the medical world. Scientists and physicians test on animals in hopes of developing and advancing in medicine. However, it should be known that not everyone has the same viewpoints as each others which means that people do not compromise. That is why alternatives or substitutes are needed to fulfill one’s satisfaction.

Introduction

Australia remains one of the world’s largest producers of wool globally with approximately 70 million head of sheep as of 2018 (FAOUN, 2018) and national wool exports making up approximately 25 per cent of the wool sold on the global market holding an estimated value of $3.615 billion (Department of Agriculture water and environment, 2019).

As time goes on new challenges face the industry from natural disasters and drought natural to societal challenges like producing sustainable product and public perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animal welfare is becoming a national issue as a recent nationwide survey requested by the Department of Agriculture found that out of its 1,521 respondents “95% of people view farm animal welfare to be a concern and 91% want at least some reform” (Futureye, 2018). These consumer beliefs have giving traction to several organisations, most well-known of which include the RSPCA, the Animal Justice Party and Animals Australia, who have begun campaigning and strongly opposing the methods and husbandry practices of the industry particularly on the procedures of castration, mulesing and docking.

With both societal expectations and the expectations of organisations many Australian brands are restricting the product that they purchase depending on the treatment of the animals used to make said products (Terzon, 2020 & Woolworths Group, 2019), with this now comes an economical challenge for the industry to face.

Assessment of Pain in Sheep

Physiological Indicators

The hormone cortisol is a primary physiological indicator of pain in sheep as the glucocorticoid hormone is released in response to stress (Hecter and Pincus 1954). changes in the cortisol plasma concentration have also been studied to have negative effects on sheep particularly in regards to handling procedures (Kilgour and de Langen 1970). Cortisol however can be affected periodic fluctuations (Tapp et al 1984) and other influences that would not be considered negative to the sheep (Colborn et al 1991) and therefore accurate cortisol levels should be taken from samples following the procedure (Kilgour and de Langen 1970) and to include control groups in the experimental design.

Studies by Lester et al (1991) and Kent et al (1993) demonstrated an increase in cortisol levels of castrated lambs compared to their control uncastrated counterparts.

Behavioural Indicators

Behavioural pain indicators have been used by studies to assess pain following husbandry practices (Molony & Kent, 1997 & Molony et al., 1993) and define a lamb’s response or husbandry procedures. And the lack or routine behaviour is considered by Anil et al (2002) as a critical indicator of pain

Escaping behaviours can also provide a good indicator of the received pain of the procedure for the lamb as a study by Molony and Kent (1997) suggest that the amount of agitated behaviour shown may echo the severity of the process meaning the greater the attempts to flee or avoid the procedure the greater the pain experienced is. If the lamb has grown tired from escape behaviour it may move onto more passive ways to avoid the pain it is experiencing (Molony & Kent, 1997). In a similar study by Molony et al (1993) the opposite is also observed, as lambs that had just gone through castration and docking procedures minimised movement and stood still or lay down in order to reduce stimulating sensitive areas where the procedures took place, in this case, the more severe the pain, the more still and animal became. Apart from a lack of movement lambs who have just been through husbandry procedures have also been noted to exhibit abnormal walking behaviours and postures including, unsteady walking, hunching their back while they stand and fully extending their legs while lying down (Molony & Kent, 1997). Molony et al (1993) also noted lambs appearing drowsy with a lack of alertness even when nudged by ewe mothers.

Facial expressions are another form of behavioural pain indictor and a Sheep Pain Facial Expression Scale (SPFES) was developed by McLennan, et al (2016) as a way for farm staff to assess pain associated with footrot and mastitis. Multiple studies (Molony & Kent, 1997, Dinniss et al., 1999, Thornton & Waterman-Pearson, 1999) have identified behaviours associated specifically with sheep who have undergone castration and docking procedures, these behaviours include licking or biting the damaged area, lip-curling, as well as increased motor activities like pacing, rolling, , jumping, kicking and stamping. These behaviours are very rarely seen in lambs and such are associated with pain (Dinniss et al., 1999).

Husbandry Procedures for Sheep

Castration

Rubber rings (Banding) A rubber ring is placed above the testicles, around the neck of the scrotum eventually resulting in the testicles and scrotum to shrivel up and fall off in a few weeks.

Surgical castration A sharp knife or scalpel is used to remove the bottom one-third of the scrotal sac. The testicles are removed and the wound is allowed to heal.

Emasculator castration The spermatic cord is crushed, which destroys the blood vessels, thus depriving the testicles of blood supply and causing them to shrivel up and die.

Described by the Australian Veterinary Association (2016) as a method to reducing unwanted breeding, castration has in turn exclaimed by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) as a procedure that allows greater control over the herd genetic makeup through selective mating. MLA also claims castration also results in less aggressive male rams reducing bruising, injuries whilst making them generally safer to handle for farm staff.

Tail Docking

Knife A sharp knife is used to cut the tail down to the desired length.

Hot iron The hot iron method involves severing the tail and cauterizing it simultaneously, using a heated docking iron.

Rubber ring (Banding) A rubber ring is placed along the tail, around eventually resulting a loss of blood supply to the tail leading to the tail shrivelling up and falling off.

The tail of a docked lamb should be docked to the third palpable joint or to the tip of the vulva in ewes, any shorter and lambs have higher chances to suffer from a rectal prolapse (Thomas et al 2003). A bloodless castratior

Pain Relief

Studies have demonstrated that the use of a local anaesthetic following rubber ring castration has reduced the behavioural and physiological pain responses in lambs (Graham et al 1997, Moloney et al 1997, Thornton and Waterman-Pearson 1999). Initially it was suggested by Molony et al (1997) that the combination of a rubber ring and a bloodless castrator clamp is the most affective combination to reduce pain following castration procedures and a similar suggestion was proposed by Graham et al (1997) in regards to docking as this method saw a reduction in abnormal behaviours and cortisol peaks from rubber ring only castrated lambs (Thornton and Waterman-Pearson 1999). As the understanding of pain management increased so did the use of local anaesthetics which were found to be more effective in reducing pain than the band and clamp method

Conclusion

In regards to assessing pain in sheep while both physiological and behavioural methods of assessment are helpful and provide a level of understanding with the animal that is beneficial, they both have flaws in the way they are obtained. Physiological methods of measuring pain are generally invasive for example the common act of collecting blood involves moving and/or handling the animal leading to an increase of cortisol in the system (Haresign et al., 1995, Khalid et al., 1998) potentially skewing cortisol levels and thus test results. Behavioural methods of pain assessment may also have their respective consequences, Underwood (2002) demonstrated that prey animals generally hide their pain related behaviours in response to the threat of a predator. Being prey animals’ sheep may mask or show minimal signs of their pain in an effort to appear healthy to any human observers. Another flaw with behavioural observations is they must be done during daylight and generally involve watching only one individual animal at a time, this leads to the process becoming time consuming and slow.

With all this in mind a less intrusive and consistent method of assessing animal pain would be beneficial to the industry and potentially to farming as a whole.

References

1. Anil S, Anil L, Deen J (2002) Challenges of pain assessment in domestic animals. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 220, 313-319.
2. Australian Government: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (2019) Wool [Online]. Available at: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/meat-wool-dairy/wool#other-links (verified 12 February 2020)
3. Australian Veterinary Association (2016) Tail docking and castration of lambs and sheep [Online]. Available at: https://www.ava.com.au/policy-advocacy/policies/sheep-and-goat-health-and-welfare/tail-docking-and-castration-of-lambs-and-sheep/ (Verified 19 February 2020)
4. Colborn DR, Thompson D, Roth T, Capehart J, White K (1991) Responses of cortisol and prolactin to sexual excitement and stress in stallions and geldings. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 2556-2562.
5. Dinniss A, Stafford K, Mellor D, Bruce R, Ward RN (1999) The Behaviour pattern of lambs after castration using a rubber ring and/or castrating clamp with or without local anaesthetic. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 47, 198-203.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018) FAOSTAT: Live Animals [Online]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA (Verified 12 February 2020)
7. Futureye (2018) Australia’s shifting mindset on farm animal welfare [Online]. Available at: https://futureye.com/resources/ (Verified 8 February 2020)
8. Graham M, Kent J, Molony V (1997) Effects of four analgesic treatments on the behavioural and cortisol responses of 3-week-old lambs to tail docking. Veterinary Journal, 153, 87-97.
9. Haresign W, Williams R, Khalid M, Rodway R (1995) Heart rate responses and plasma cortisol and β-endorphin concentrations in ewes subjected to laparoscopy and its associated handling procedures. Animal Science, 61, 77-83.
10. Hecter O, Pincus G (1954) Genesis of the adrenocortical secretion. Physiological Reviews, 34, 459-496.
11. Kent, J., Molony, V., & Robertson, I. (1993). Changes in plasma cortisol concentration in lambs of three ages after three methods of castration and tail docking. Research in Veterinary Science, 55, 246-251.
12. Khalid M, Haresign W, Bradley D (1998) Heart rate responses and plasm cortisol concentration in ewes: comparison between cervical and laparoscopic intrauterine insemination and their associated handling procedures. Animal Science, 66, 383-387.
13. Kilgour R, DeLangen H (1970) Stress in sheep resulting from management practices. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 30, 65-76.
14. McLennan K, Rebelo C, Corke M, Holmes M, Leach M, Constantino-Casas F (2016) Development of a facial expression scale using footrot and mastitis as models of pain in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 176, 19-26.
15. Molony V, Kent J (1997) Assessment of acute pain in farm animals using behavioural and physiological measurements. Journal of Animal Science, 75, 266-272.
16. Molony V, Kent J, Robertson I (1993) Behavioural responses of lambs of three ages in the first three hours after three methods of castration and tail docking. Research in Veterinary Science, 55, 236-245.
17. Tapp WN, Holaday JW, Natelson BH (1984) Ultradlan glucocorticoid rhythms in monkeys and rats continue during stress. American Journal of Physiology, 247, 866-871.
18. Terzon E (2020) ‘No sheep bottoms were harmed in the making of this fuzzy jumper, but some producers aren’t happy’. ABC News, 18 January, accessed February 6 2020
19. Thomas D, Waldron D, Lowe G, Morrical D (2003) Length of Docked Tail and the Incidence of Rectal Prolapse in Lambs1. Journal of Animal Science, 81, 2725-2732.
20. Thornton P, Waterman-Pearson A (1999) Quantification of the pain and distress response to castration in young lambs. Research in Veterinary Science, 66, 107-118.
21. Thornton P, Waterman-Pearson A (2002) Behavioural responses to castration in lambs. Animal Welfare, 11, 203-212.
22. Underwood W (2002) Pain and distress in agricultural animals. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 221, 208-211.
23. Woolworth Group (2019) Animal Welfare [Online]. Available at: https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/page/community-and-responsibility/group-responsibility/responsible-sourcing/Animal_Welfare (Verified 14 February 2020)

Hunting is seen as morally wrong or barbaric by animal advocates. People see it as cruel because unlike natural predators many humans do it for pleasure. As more people find it inhumane the deer population goes up daily. Hunting is an activity that our ancestors have done for millions of years that is still practiced in different countries as a way to survive so what makes America so different? Nicholas D. Kristof explores this topic in his essay titled “For Environmental Balance, Pick Up a Rifle”. His argument is pro-hunting, using a lot of statistics and demographics to dispute the animal advocates. Nicholas D. Kristof uses an abundance of ethos and logos to sway his audience in hopes they will pick up a rifle and start hunting.

The strongest appeal that Nicholas D. Kristof presents is logos. He uses many facts and figures to back up his argument that hunting is something we have to do to save our environment and live safely. “Deer also kill people more directly. A study for the insurance industry estimated that deer kill about 150 people a year in car crashes nationwide and cause $ 1 billion in damage”(188). Deer kills more people in America than any other mammal. These deaths are not always due to deer mauling humans, but mainly due to car crashes. The high numbers make deer the deadliest animal in America. The populations of deer are expanding yearly and liberals and animal advocates aren’t finding a solution to stop the expansion. Death tolls and billions of dollars are serious problems that can be stopped with such a simple solution, hunting. Hunting would save lives yearly, which makes you start to think, is a deer’s life more valuable than a human’s? “In a wilderness, there might be ten deer per square mile; in parts of New Jersey, there are up to 200 per square mile”(188). The overabundance of deer kills more than just humans, they are destroying our ecosystem by affecting plants, birds, and different big predators like coyotes and cougars. The only solution is releasing bigger games to the communities, sterilizing deer, or the obvious- hunting them. Applying a vast amount of logic Nicholas D. Kristof makes you think from a nonemotional standpoint to win you over with logos.

Nicholas D. Kristof applies an immense amount of ethos throughout the essay. Using ethos he creates credibility so the viewer can see him as trustworthy. To back up his statistics he uses a lot of organizations and magazines to get his information correct. “As the editor of Adirondack Explorer magazine suggested, do we introduce wolves into the burbs?”(189). Using a nonprofit magazine like Adirondack Explorer has main goal is to protect the environment makes his statement more dependable to the reader. Also using a statement like the above that brings up other alternatives to keeping the deer population down strengthens his ethos by showing that he can try to see other possibilities which shows he is unbiased and fair. He uses regular people as well in his essay to show that deer attacks can happen to anyone. “In October, for example, Wayne Goldsberry was sitting in a home in northwestern Arkansas when he heard glass breaking in the next room. It was a home invasion by a buck”(189). Using everyday people shows his ethos by displaying he did his research and communicated with people who aren’t paid to give an opinion. After backing up his credibility and character with ethos you are persuaded that he has good character and is open to understanding his side of hunting.

While implicating a lot of reason and logic in this essay, the author also dispenses satire. By implicating a little humor it takes away from the touchy subject and gives the reader a chuckle now and then. “I don’t expect many soccer moms to install gun racks in their minivans”(189) he says, which brings a little playfulness to the essay. Using wit and comedy catches the reader’s attention without taking away all the seriousness from the essay. “The upshot is that towns in New York and New Jersey are talking about using birth control to keep deer populations down. (Liberals presumably support free condoms, while conservatives back abstinence education). Deer contraception hasn’t been very successful, though” (188). Tieing into real-life contraception with deer he plays with humor while making a statement. There is no way to make deer wear a type of contraception so it brings the reader to realize that hunting is one of the only solutions left.

Hunting was an important pastime like scavenging and gathering for human survival but now people do it purely for entertainment. This interest in pleasure is a violent action that kills millions of animals per year. “Hunting causes suffering, especially for marine mammals. There is no “humane’ method of killing any but the smallest marine mammals and a harpooned whale typically suffers an agonizing and miserable death, sometimes prolonged over several hours. A high proportion of land mammals and ducks are injured rather than being killed instantly; these “cripples” may suffer for days before either recovering or dying. ”(70) When shooting an animal not all goes as planned, there a many cases where the animal gets away and is injured. In some cases, the animal is shot in the face or gut and is faced with an excruciating death. The fear of being hunted inflicts fear of a constant chase and doesn’t allow animals to do basic things like eat and graze stress-free. There is also no way for a fair chase, an animal has no way to defend themselves so they are left hopeless while being hunted. “Hunting wrongly deprives animals of something valuable to them- their lives”(69) Animals have lived side by side with humans for as long as we know, they aren’t entertainment or just food sources they are part of what makes this planet so special. They have emotions and feel pain, so why would we want to inflict that on another species? It’s morally wrong to look at something in the eye and know that in one second it’s no longer going to be living and breathing and feel that you are righteous enough to make that decision. To kill for a food source is one thing, but to kill just to kill is another. Animals have a life just like we do and it isn’t just to take it away just because we have the power to do so.

The deer population is growing every day which is creating death tolls, billions of dollars in car crashes, diseases and negatively affecting the ecosystem daily. Nicholas D. Kristof has found a simple solution- hunting. In his essay “For Environmental Balance, Pick Up a Rifle” he explores different approaches which all are less successful which leaves the reader more open to understanding his standpoint on picking up a rifle and hunting. He persuades his readers by applying a vast amount of logos, ethos, and satire to convince them to help the environment.

Introduction to Emotions

Do you ever wonder what your dog is thinking? Does she miss you when you leave for work in the morning? What is he trying to say as he holds that toy in his mouth and wiggles all over, greeting you at the door? While we aren’t sure of what they would say, many of us would agree that our dogs certainly have emotions to some extent. But does a hermit crab become sad when its shell is stolen, or does a lobster feel scared when a predator is nearby? If we believe that our dogs have emotions then we should ask whether other animals have them as well, especially those used in food production.

To discuss animal emotions, we first must define emotions and the terminology surrounding it. Emotion is: “A short-lived response to a stimulus that guides animals towards rewards (e.g. food and mates) and away from danger (e.g. freeze, flight, and fight).” Emotions have multiple facets consisting of behavioural, neurological, and physiological components, and can help an individual survive.

Emotion refers to short term feelings, but a less common yet similar term is “affective state”, which encompasses both short term emotions as well as an individual’s longer lasting moods. Affective states are generally described as being plotted on a graph composed of two axes: valence and arousal.

Valence refers to whether the affective state is positive or negative, whereas arousal refers to the excitement level. For example, high arousal and negative valence would be considered a state such as fear. Positive valence and low arousal would be considered a calm state. In general, an affective state is developed over a longer period of time than an emotion, and it affects how an individual interprets and responds to stimuli. When a person is in a depressed state they are more likely to interpret vague terminology as negative, assuming a pessimistic view. Similarly, it is thought that affective states in animals influence how they respond to stimuli, possibly providing us with insight into the animal’s welfare.

Throughout history there have been various beliefs about emotions and the physiological changes humans experience. The theory of emotion by William James and Carle Lange states that emotions are a result of the physiological changes in the body, rather than the emotions causing the physical changes or the two occurring simultaneously(1). To illustrate this theory, imagine you are about to present a speech to a massive audience – your heart might begin to race and you start to perspire as you feel the knot in your stomach. According to the James-Lange theory, these physiological changes are what cause the almost immediate feeling of fear or anxiousness. However, this theory has been criticized and disproven through studies which induce the physiological changes without inducing the emotional change, demonstrating the physiological changes cannot be the sole cause of the emotions.

So then how do emotions work? There are often believed to be two types of emotions – primary and secondary. Primary emotions are those that animals are born with and are more reflex like, helping immediately with survival in the moment. However, secondary emotions are felt and reflected on, requiring higher brain centers. These secondary emotions are considered by some scientists to require consciousness(2) and are what we typically focus on when referring to animal welfare.

Many researchers have attempted to understand whether animals have emotions, but it is more difficult than it may seem. It is relatively simple to study some aspects of animal behaviour such as reflexes, attentional focus, or memory, but how do you study what a frog is feeling? For humans we utilize self reports to assess feelings, but since animals cannot communicate using our language, we incorporate other methods.

In addition to the rather significant language barrier, another difficulty in studying animal emotion and affective state is the idea of consciousness. Currently we are unable to study consciousness in animals because it requires knowing an animal’s awareness of its internal or external existence. However, there are ways around the dilemma by observing animals’ actions in various scenarios, allowing us to infer their emotions and affective states.

How Do We Study States or Emotions?

Researchers are able to study affective states in animals using a few different methods. One of the most common is through cognitive bias – a systematic error altering the individual’s decisions and judgments, providing insight into the emotions and welfare of an animal.

Cognitive bias research was first demonstrated in humans. A study presented subjects with a ‘subliminal expression’ – happy, neutral, or unhappy faces that were unable to be consciously seen. During the presentation of the subliminal expression, the subject was consciously viewing a neutral face and reporting to the researchers whether it was male or female. Researchers then observed how subjects responded to a novel item. They presented the subjects with a new drink and measured how many poured the drink and how much each subject consumed. In the meantime, the subject was told to report back their conscious feelings. Those that were shown the happy expression poured and consumed greater amounts of the drink than the other groups. Conversely, those who saw the unhappy subliminal expression poured and consumed the least amount of the drink(3). This suggests those with a more positive affective state are more optimistic; this research has been applied to animals as well by manipulating environments and treatments prior to testing their response toward novel stimuli, such as in the study below.

Does Research Support Animal Emotions?

COGNITIVE BIAS IN INVERTEBRATES

To test cognitive bias in invertebrates, honeybees were put into an anxiety-like state, causing them to act more pessimistically. You may be asking, “How does one make a bee have anxiety?” Researchers are unable to ask bees to deliver an impromptu speech, so to induce anxiety the researchers mimic the bees’ predators. Predators tend to shake them during an attempted attack so shaking a bee is theorized to cause anxiety. Researchers taught a group of bees that one stimulus meant they would receive a reward such as 2.00 M sucrose. In anticipation of the reward, the bees would extend their proboscis (mouth-like and used for sucking). The group of bees was also taught that another stimulus meant they would receive an unpleasant concoction. One half of the bees were then shaken to simulate the predator attack and cause an anxiety-like state. The bees were then tested on an ambiguous stimulus – a novel concoction that was between the reward stimulus and the unpleasant stimulus.

The critical question was how the bees in the anxiety state responded to the new, ambiguous concoction. Bees who had a more positive view of the new substance would extend their proboscis, as they were expecting a positive outcome, whereas those with a more pessimistic view would not extend it. The bees who experienced the anxiety producing state were found to be more ‘pessimistic’ and did not extend their proboscis, while the other group were more likely to extend(4). This was the first study to demonstrate that a honeybee’s state affects its response to an ambiguous stimulus, very similar to the findings in humans regarding novel stimuli and affective states.

PAIN IN CRUSTACEANS

Another important aspect in animal welfare relating to affective state is pain. Nociception occurs when receptors detect tissue damage, then the signal is sent to the Central Nervous System and pain is the unpleasant feeling generated. Nociceptive reflexes are reactions which occur prior to any impulses reaching the brain. Because of the nociceptive reflexes, in some instances there may not be any awareness of tissue damage or any sense of pain. So the role of pain may be to cause the animal to learn to change their behaviour to prevent future damage, whereas nociceptive reflexes prevent immediate danger. These differences are important to consider when studying animal emotions because an animal’s welfare would not necessarily be compromised if they cannot feel pain.

In the past, it has widely been assumed that crustaceans are unable to feel pain and their response to aversive stimuli is solely due to reflexes. Because of this, their welfare has not been prioritized. Dr. Robert Elwood conducted experiments to investigate the validity of this assumption. Dr. Elwood explains there are six criteria which can help determine if an animal is feeling pain or is demonstrating a nociceptive reflex – avoidance learning, motivational trade-offs, long term behaviour change, prolonged direct rubbing, anxiety, and physiological stress. He performed multiple types of experiments to investigate crustacean pain.

One of the most powerful studies utilized a small crustacean, called glass prawns, and analyzed their prolonged direct rubbing associated with different treatments on the antennae. One antenna was treated with either water or an anesthetic. 5 minutes later the same antenna was treated with water again, NaOH, acetic acid or pinched with forceps. After the second treatment, the prawns groomed the affected antenna significantly more if treated with NaOH, acetic acid, or pinched. Additionally, the grooming of the affected antenna was decreased in the prawns which received a local anaesthetic prior to the second treatment. This demonstrates that the individual crustaceans are aware of the source of the damage and the awareness lasts for quite a while, continuing to bother them and cause them to rub it repeatedly – this behaviour is very consistent with the evidence of pain, and likely with emotions, as it involves the Central Nervous System and being aware of the unpleasant experience(5).

CANINE PREFERENCE FOR PRAISE

In addition to demonstrating animals can have feelings of anxiety and pain, research has also shown that animals can have a preference for experiences which have no survival benefit but are similar to affection, or some would even say love. Dr. Gregory Berns studies canine cognition using an MRI machine. In one study, Dr. Berns examined how dogs respond to praise versus food. Dogs were signaled that they were to receive either hotdogs or praise, while Berns analyzed the activation in the reward areas of the brain, particularly the caudate nucleus. Dr. Berns concluded that some dogs have preferences for either food or praise, and others enjoy both equally(6). At the PennVet Working Dog Conference, Dr. Berns expanded on this and explained that some dogs prefer a reward type based upon the circumstances, very similar to a human’s moods.

These findings which demonstrate dogs value praise and food equally, or sometimes even prefer praise, suggest that dogs do not solely have survival needs which influence their behaviour, but also perhaps emotions. While it might be a bit of a jump for Dr. Berns to conclude that this preference for praise means the dogs feel love, it does suggest that the dogs have feelings toward their owners and have a desire to please them despite any clear survival benefits.

PLAY AND PLEASURE

Another aspect of animal emotions is the existence of happiness, especially related to play. Play does not appear to have any survival benefit and seems to exist purely for enjoyment of the animal, suggesting the existence of feelings or emotions. Numerous species are known to attempt to play with others – from dogs to elephants to geckos. When an animal initiates play, they seem to be in a state of a strong desire, or even a need, to play. Even if their first potential playmate declines the invitation they will invite another. If no other animals will play, then they will resort to playing independently, using rocks or other items in the environment to entertain themselves2.

A more specific example of pleasure, or possible existence of happiness, is rat tickling. When a rat is tickled on their abdomen, they let out 50 kHz vocalisations and dopamine (a neurotransmitter related to happiness) is released. Researchers have found that after rats are tickled they demonstrate fewer anxiety and fear related behaviours, reduced stress, and decreased latency for approaching novel items (7). These results after tickling are in line with an optimistic view of stimuli, as explained previously in the cognitive bias testing, strongly suggesting that rats could be experiencing happiness, or at least pleasure, from being tickled.

How Do We Recognize Animal Emotions In The Real World?

While research is critical in understanding animals and provides us the opportunity to manipulate variables, it is also important to be able to recognize states of animals outside the laboratory. One way that we are able to recognize negative states is through stereotypic behaviour. These behaviors are repetitive and appear useless, but have developed due to frustration or repeated attempts to cope. Typically the behaviours are repeated in predictable ways, the animal has difficulty stopping, and they have developed due to insolvable problems. Horses may crib-bite when not given enough enrichment or kept in too small of an area, tigers may relentlessly pace along their enclosure, sows may bite the bars of their crate, and polar bears often demonstrate head swaying.

However, just because stereotypies exist, does that mean that they are in a negative affective state? To explore this, we must look at why stereotypies exist. One reason is frustration – when animals are prevented from acting upon their motivations, they become frustrated and this may lead to displacement activities. A second reason is fear – studies have found tranquilizers can reduce the existence of stereotypies. A third source of stereotypy development is restraint and lack of stimulation.

Stereotypies might have a purpose such as reducing arousal, lowering awareness or responsiveness to aversive stimuli, or reducing pain. In voles they found that the stereotypy of vertical jumping caused a decrease in corticosteroid levels. If the animal performs the stereotypy and is able to better cope with the situation one might say that the animal has ‘solved’ the problem. However, from a welfare perspective, it would certainly be preferable to prevent the animal from having to resort to stereotypies as a coping method.

While stereotypies may sometimes result from poor welfare, it is also important to not jump to conclusions as there is a genetic component. There is a 5 times greater chance of stereotypies in offspring with a mother who demonstrates them, and 3 times greater chance if the sire demonstrates them. Genetic components could exaggerate the appearance of poor welfare as the animal is more prone to stereotypies. Due to the individual variations, stereotypies alone should not be used to infer an animal’s state. Other signals do exist to provide insight into an animal’s state such as activity level, response to novel stimuli, and body language (i.e. ear posture).

The studies explained above, as well as the existence of behaviours such as stereotypies, strongly suggest that affective states and feelings are present in animals. However, many questions remain. If animals are determined to have emotions, which animals are included? Does it generalize to all animals? Most likely not. Then how do we assess a species to determine their capability of possessing emotions and to what extent? How do we determine which animals should be treated better than the others? A significant amount of research still needs to be conducted to discover which animals experience emotions and if more stringent legislation should be put in place to ensure the welfare of all, especially those utilized in farming. Without further research on these animals and their emotions, we may be unnecessarily catering to some, while unintentionally mistreating others.

References

1. Cherry, K. (2019, October 15). How Does the James-Lange Theory Account for Emotions? Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-james-lange-theory-of-emotion-2795305.
2. Bekoff, M. (2000). Animal Emotions: Exploring Passionate Natures. BioScience, 50(10), 861. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0861:aeepn]2.0.co;2
3. Winkielman, P., & Berridge, K. C. (2004). Unconscious Emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(3), 120–123. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00288.x
4. Bateson, M., Desire, S., Gartside, S. E., & Wright, G. A. (2011). Agitated Honeybees Exhibit Pessimistic Cognitive Biases. Current Biology, 21(12), 1070–1073. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.017
5. Barr, S., Laming, P. R., Dick, J. T., & Elwood, R. W. (2008). Nociception or pain in a decapod crustacean? Animal Behaviour, 75(3), 745–751. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.07.004
6. Morris, C. (2019, September 19). Neuroscientist Proves What You Already Knew: Your Dog Really Does Love You. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2017/09/26/your-dog-loves-you-study/.
7. Lafollette, M. R., O’Haire, M. E., Cloutier, S., Blankenberger, W. B., & Gaskill, B. N. (2017). Rat tickling: A systematic review of applications, outcomes, and moderators. Plos One, 12(4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175320
8. Affective States. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://horback.faculty.ucdavis.edu/assessing-affective-states/.

“We must fight against the spirit of unconscious cruelty with which we treat the animals. Animals suffer as much as we do. True humanity does not allow us to impose such sufferings on them. It is our duty to make the whole world recognize it. Until we extend our circle of compassion to all living things, humanity will not find peace.” ― Albert Schweitzer, I have chosen to do the option 1 reading packet which will be addressing animal rights. My paper will be focusing on finding ways to reinforce animal rights. Working on this ethics paper and wrestling with my animal rights topic is important because it gives me a chance to talk for the animals and to input all the things that I’ve learned in this class so far into my paper. With this paper, I am going to be talking about how animals and humans are no different but in order to live there are some things that humans must do to animals that will be considered cruel to some people. It is not always what we want to do but what we need to do in order to protect and watch out for ourselves. Making decisions to hurt animals to benefit ourselves may be challenging but if we do not hunt and kill cows, pigs, or even chickens how will we be able to eat meat or use other parts of their bodies for our clothes and other necessities? In my paper, I will have at least 5 articles that I will cite throughout my paper to help back up my ethical dilemma about animal rights. I will begin my paper by talking about the major issues that I found most of the authors arguing about in reference to the articles that I chose to cite in my paper.

The first issue that I will be addressing is the suffering of the animals. Animal suffering is also known as animal abuse, animal cruelty, or animal neglect. Allowing animals to suffer and not caring or in other words being self-conscious of animal’s lives is considered as being immoral. Animals have their own lives, and they think, have feelings, can feel pain, and require love, happiness, and everything else that humans have. The article “An Introduction to the Moral Issues,” in Contemporary Moral Issues: Diversity and Consensus by Lawrence M. Hinman talks about the religious concerns in reference to animal rights. In the article, it states that “many advocates of animal rights and animal liberations maintain that religions, especially Christianity, have contributed strongly to the subjection and mistreatment of animals.” Basically, it is informing readers that the Christianity religion does not agree with the mistreatment of animals and it can be referred to as sacrilegious abuse according to C.S Lewis who is a Christian Theologian. In this article, they talk about compassion and they feel as if a person is less compassionate about animals then they could care less about them suffering but if they are compassionate about animals then it hurts them to see and know that the animals are suffering. In the article, it states that “Compassionate people will be more responsive to the suffering of animals, and that continuing mistreatment of animals in our society dulls our capacity for compassion in regard to all beings.” From reading this article you can see that animals really do suffer, and you can also see that some people care about animals and do not agree with animal abuse, animal cruelty, or animal neglect. In the article “ The Prospects for Consensus and Convergence in the Animal Rights Debate,” in Contemporary Moral Issues: Diversity and Consensus by Gary E. Varner he is having an animal rights debate, and in his debate he talks about the animal’s point of view, and also the human’s point of view. In the article, it states” Often disagreements turn on empirical rather than moral matters–how much pain animals suffer and what benefits flow from a research project. Even Tom Regan’s defense of animal rights recognizes that in some cases human interests clearly take precedence over animal interests.” I put that segment from the article to show you that animals tend to suffer because of the things humans do but it’s not always intentionally meant to hurt the animals. Animals not only suffer because of environmental issues but they also suffer because of the choices that humans decide to make.

The second major issue that I will be talking about is the things that we as humans do that may be harmful to animals which may include taking things from them. In the article “Our Duties to Animals,” in The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature by Louis P. Pojman it states “Every minute of the day, twenty-four hours a day, one hundred animals are killed in laboratories in the United States. Fifty million animals used in experiments are put to death each year. Some die during the testing of industrial and cosmetic products; some are killed after being force-fed or after being tested for pharmaceutical drugs. Product testing on animals is required by the government before the products are allowed for use by human beings.” In reference to the segment, I just stated it shows how animals must endure so much based on human decisions. Another thing that I am going to state from this article is “Three billion chickens are killed in the United States each year. Likewise, pigs and veal calves are kept in pens so small they cannot move or turn around and develop muscles. They are separated from their mothers so they cannot be suckled and are fed a diet low in iron so they will produce very tender meat. “This is another example that shows how animals suffer because of the things that we humans do for us to be able to eat, stay warm, or even look fashionable. Another article that I am going to use in reference to the things that animals go through because of humans is “A New Argument for Vegetarianism,” In Disputed Moral Issues by Jordan Curnutt. In this article, it talks about the killing and eating of animals. In the article, it then states” One implication of this view is that killing animals for food, whether or not this is done painlessly and independently of the quality of the animal’s life, is a violation of their right to respectful treatment since it uses them as a means to our own ends. Hence, vegetarianism is morally required.” Everybody has rights whether they are followed every day or enforced every day. A lot of people do things and say they are not intentional no matter whether it’s right or it’s wrong. There is really no difference between animals and humans because we all have lives and families, but what would humans do without animals?

The last major issue that I will be talking about is showing you that there is necessarily no difference between animals and humans but in order to survive we have to do things that we would not necessarily like, feel comfortable with doing, or either want to engage in doing. Yes, animals have four legs, fins, or even scales but they still have a heart, feelings, and suffer just like humans do. In the article “Animal Liberation: All Animals Are Equal,” In the Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature by Carl Cohen it states “What equalizes all sentient beings is our ability to suffer. In that, we and animals are equal and deserving of equal consideration of interests.” I chose to add this segment from the article in my paper to show readers that there are some people that really do feel like there is no difference between animals and humans. There are even some people that feel like humans tend to discriminate against animals and make them suffer just so that we can have our needs and wants but everybody in this world isn’t cruel and some people have a heart. It is not about whether we do not care about the animal or the animal’s feelings, it is about what sacrifices we need such as having food in our stomachs and having clothes on our backs. A lot of people feel as if it was vice versa and animals treat humans how we treat them then how would we feel? It is not that we want to purposely hurt anything that God put on this Earth but if we were not supposed to hunt animals in order to have food and clothing then why would God give a man the knowledge on how to hunt animals? Nobody just wants to harm animals for fun but in order to make sure they have food in their homes and clothes on their backs than they will end up harming an animal. In the article “The Case against Animal Rights,” In The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature by Carl Cohen, it states “Using animals as research subjects in medical investigations is widely condemned on two grounds: first, because it wrongly violates the rights of animals, and second, because it wrongly imposed on sentient creatures much avoidable suffering.” This statement from the article shows readers that we as humans tend to go overboard in regards to animals and we end up not caring if it hurts them or not, but the only thing that we’re worried about is if us killing that particular animal will benefit us or not. No matter if the animal can feel the pain or not it is still wrong, it violates their rights, and they are still suffering in the end. Another segment that I will like to state from this article is “They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Animals, therefore, have no rights, and they can have none.” A lot of people will agree and disagree with this because as I mentioned before animals have feelings and so do humans so why can’t they have rights? People will agree with the statement that I provided from the article because when it comes time to vote for a president can animals vote? No matter what the circumstance is you will need to find a solution to solve the problem and in order to do that you must have a case study.

The problem that we are facing today regarding the topic of animal rights is finding out if animals really do have rights and if we think that they do then why, if we feel like they don’t have rights then why not. I asked three of my close friends this question and the first response was “ Yes animals do have rights because they do have a life, they do have families, and even though they can’t respond or talk like humans they still have a right to live.” The next response was “Yes they do have the right to be anywhere they want because humans are messing up their habitat by building houses, so that makes them not have anywhere to go so they end up living under people’s houses, and then getting “evicted” because they’re called rodents and humans are calling exterminators. The last response was “Yes, because I feel like animals are like us humans, and not only that, but animals are their own species just like us humans meaning we have stuff in common but just in different ways.” I agree with all my friend’s responses because yes animals and humans have different characteristics, but they still have feelings, we all have emotions and can feel pain, and we all have lives to live. After reading more articles and actually thinking about this entire paper it made me think about what if animals were in human’s shoes then they would do exactly what we as humans are doing today which happens to be hunting animals and eating them and putting their fur on our backs so that we can have clothes. It is not always about the things we want in life it is about the things that we need in life and the majority of the people that tend to take up for animals are the main ones that eat meat every day.

To sum up this paper, animals can’t voice their opinion of things so how can we advocate for animals if we are the ones that are really harming them and taking them off the planet slowly but surely? Decision-making is one of the hardest things we must make in life, but whether we like it or not sometimes we have to make decisions that we deep down inside do not want to make but we must make.

References

1. Carl Cohen,” The Case against Animal Rights,” in The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, 2d ed., ed. Louis P. Pojman (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004), 878-883
2. Gary E. Varner, “The Prospects for Consensus and Convergence in the Animal Rights Debate,” in Contemporary Moral Issues: Diversity and Consensus, ed. Lawrence M. Hinman (upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996), 487-495
3. Jordan Curnutt,” A New Argument for vegetarianism,” in Disputed Moral Issues: A Reader, ed. Mark Timmons (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 207), 498-508
4. Lawrence M. Hinman, “An Introduction to the Moral Issues,” in Contemporary Moral Issues: Diversity and Consensus, ed. Lawrence M. Hillman (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996), 460-469
5. Louis P. Pojman, “Our Duties to Animals” in The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, 2d ed., ed. Louis P. Pojman (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004), 850-851
6. Peter Singer,” Animal Liberation: All Animals are Equal,” in The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, 2d ed., ed. Louis P. Pojman (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004), 861-877

Introduction

‘Humans and other species’ is the topic that I personally chose for my Global Perspectives individual research essay. While for my sub-topic, I have specifically chosen ‘Animal Rights’. The reason is that this is a common issue that is happening in this world. All of us know that every human being is entitled to their own individual rights, which gives them the ability to defend themselves if someone attempts to take them away from them. This should also be applied to animals for they are the same creatures created by God. However, their abilities to defend themselves from people who violate their rights are very limited. Some animals around the world are not being treated with care. They receive unnecessary harm and threats from various sides without the ability to fight back or speak for themselves.

According to Wikipedia, “animal rights is the idea in which some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests, such as the need to avoid suffering, should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.”

National Perspectives

In Indonesia, animal rights have become a rising concern. Nowadays, there are several non-government organizations that are involved in defending animal rights, such as JAAN (Jakarta Animal Aid Network), Garda Satwa Indonesia, and many more. Jakarta Animal Aid Network has played a big role in protecting animal rights in Indonesia. One of their acts is where they have succeeded to influence the government by banning the ‘dancing monkey’ act (topeng monyet) that used to be very popular in Jakarta. The ‘dancing monkey’ act was one of the famous entertainment in Jakarta where people used monkeys to earn money by forcing them to perform on the streets. Not only that, they were treated brutally, being forced to use masks, dance, and ride bikes in front of the crowds. [Appendix 1]

Since the beginning, this act is illegal. However, nobody cared about this rule until JAAN took action and began the campaign in 2009 regarding this animal abuse. The reason why they started this project was because of the cruelty the humans showed toward the monkeys. Their main website stated three main things that cause animal abuse. The first cause is the pet market. The monkeys are being sold in the market so people can buy and train them to dance and do tricks to be used for profit later on. Secondly, the monkeys are exported to different countries around the world to be used as subjects for research. Lastly, they are made into food to be eaten by humans. The monkeys, also known as Macaques, are caught from the forests and sold for either Rp. 25,000 or Rp. 70,000 which is approximately around US$2 or US$7. Through a lot of investigations, campaigns, meetings, and coordinating with the local government, providing facilities for the confiscated monkeys, and organizing a workshop, finally, JAAN succeeded in getting official approval from the former Governor of Jakarta, Joko Widodo, to ban ‘dancing monkeys’ from the year of 2013 onwards.

Currently, JAAN is working on a project to save the dolphins in Indonesia. They started this project in 2014 and have been working on it since then. The dolphins that are used for shows are not being treated as how they should be treated. According to the JAAN official website, these dolphins traveled by truck for more than 30 hours. In the tanks they’re living in, they’re not able to use their sonar. “Laboratory research in 2012 proved that the water contains eight times as much chlorine levels as officially tolerated by mammals. Excessive amounts of chlorine can cause blindness, skin disorders, and a general decline in health. Conditions in dirty water, usually full of feces, cause infection and slow death in the dolphins.” This shows how much dolphins are indirectly being abused. They’re already suffering to be kept inside the small tanks as they’re not able to move freely, but the way humans take care of them made the situation even worse. It’s extremely cruel for them to be in a swimming pool when a few meters away is their true home, the ocean. It’s stated that in Indonesia, many of the dolphins are being replaced with wild-caught dolphins when they die. However, despite everything that happened to the dolphins, the government of Indonesia has not been taking much action against them. [Appendix 2]

Above is just two examples of animal abuse that happened in Indonesia. There are still a lot of them that haven’t got much attention from the public or non-government organizations that try to protect animal rights. Through this, it’s shown that protecting animals’ rights in Indonesia is still progressing.

Global Perspectives

As for global perspectives, animals’ rights are an issue that is quite well known. One of the well-known international organizations that defend animal rights is WWF (World Wild Life). It’s a huge organization that was founded in Massachusetts, United States and is working with 100 countries around the world. There are a lot of animal species that they are trying to protect. They played a very big role in protecting animal rights. The species of the animals that are stated on their official website are tiger, polar bear, giant panda, orangutan, amur leopard, sea turtle, chimpanzee, elephant, plains bison, vaquita, rhino, dolphins and porpoises, gorilla, whale, bonobo and a lot more. They are divided into three groups: marine animals, primates, and big cats. All of these animals are considered as endangered animals. Hence, WWF is trying to save them from extinction. There are a lot of species that have gone extinct, such as passenger pigeon, dodo, western black rhinoceros, Pyrenean ibex, quagga, Tasmanian tiger, steller’s sea cow, woolly mammoth, great auk, pinta island tortoise, and more. Based on the WWF official website, they’ve stated their ‘6 ambitious goals’ and will work around six key areas which consist of forests, marine, wildlife, freshwater, climate, and food.

“To accomplish our ambitious goals, we work to educate and influence people into making sustainable choices and decisions, including those who work in business and make decisions around the use of natural resources, and those who work in government and set policy that impacts nature.”

World Wild Life (WWF)

Aside from that, not everyone around the world supports animals to have their own rights. According to the website (www.debate.org), 74% of participants support animal rights, while the other 26% don’t. Most of the responses of people who agree with animal rights, talk about how animals should be treated the same way as how human beings are treated. They are saying that animals are also living creatures, they deserved to get a chance to have a peaceful life and have their own family. They do not deserve to be tortured by us, or for us.

On the other hand, 26% of them, have contrary opinions. They’re saying that animals don’t pay taxes as humans do, they don’t have the ability to understand things, especially to choose between good or bad, and they don’t defend the rights of human beings. Basically, in their opinion, animals don’t deserve their own rights, because even humans worked so hard to get their rights, but animals don’t even contribute to society besides giving food to human beings. They think it’s enough for people to provide them with food and shelter in return for the benefits that they’ve given to humans. On the issue of animal experiments, some people are worried about who will be experimented for medical purposes if animals aren’t allowed to be used, because it’s obviously extremely rare for people to volunteer themselves to be experimented on.

Personal Perspectives

In my own perspective, animal abuse is something that we can’t tolerate anymore. It’s an extremely violent thing that’s happening around the world, and many people should take serious action against whoever abused any kind of animal. As said earlier, animals also deserve rights. They should have their own freedom in their own homes. It’s not right for humans to force them to do anything they want, especially when they do not take care of the animals nicely, for their business to get their own benefits.

Some people do not agree to have animal rights, because they said that it’s such a waste for people to spend a lot of money on animals that don’t even pay taxes or work, while poverty can still be founded around the world. I do not completely disagree with them. However, the reason why people have to spend a lot of money to protect these animals is because of humans themselves. If humans don’t bother the animals, take away their homes, use them for their own benefit, or even abuse them, some people don’t have to worry about protecting animal rights. As I said, animals have rights, but they can’t speak for themselves. Hence, we have to protect them since nowadays there are many animal species that have become extinct, while some of them have become endangered. [Appendix 3]

Animals are also living creatures. They need to eat and sleep just like humans in order to survive. They have feelings too. Hence, in my opinion, people who disagree with protecting animal rights should also take action in stopping people from abusing animals. If humans do not start pushing the animals into the corner, animals will be able to live in peace and survive, which we will not have to worry about. We can use the money that is spent for protecting the animals’ rights, for something else, for example reducing water pollution, air pollution, poverty, and many other main issues that are occurring in this world right now.

I have interviewed some students in our school about animal rights, and here are the answers that they have stated.

1. What do you think about animal rights?

“I think animal rights is very important because they aren’t any different from humans and they deserve to get what humans get, for example, humans get proper shelter and food. Some animals are abandoned because their owners no longer want to take responsibility to take care of them.”

– Ashley Liu Buntaram, grade 10 student

2. How often do you see animals being abused with your own eyes?

“Animals are being kicked at the streets. People have pets but they don’t know how to take care of them properly, and that can bring them to death.”

– Brilliana Thalia Wijaya, grade 10 student

3. Do you think that people have taken enough action about protecting animal rights?

“Yes, but it takes time because humans have different perspectives on the way they see animal abuse. For example, I see it as something horrifying and disgusting but to other people, they probably see it as something that gives them benefits.”

– Ashley Kellen Nio, grade 10 student

Conclusions

Even though people are working on how to protect animal rights, the world should take this issue more seriously. If we want our children or even our grandchildren to see the same animals as we do, we have to start protecting them. We have to take care of them now, to give them better shelters, and not take away their food and habitats. It is a serious matter. If animals are continuously being abused, one by one the species will become extinct. The world will not have animals.

So in conclusion, I suppose that organizations such as JAAN which represents Indonesia, and WWF which represents the world, have contributed enough to conserving animals. Even though they can do more by raising awareness about animal rights such as conveying them through social media and fun activities, they’ve done a lot of things to save the animals and their rights, and have inspired people to do the same thing.

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
2. https://www.jakartaanimalaid.com/
3. https://www.worldwildlife.org/
4. https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-animals-have-rights

Introduction

‘Humans and other species’ is the topic that I personally chose for my Global Perspectives individual research essay. While for my sub-topic, I have specifically chosen ‘Animal Rights’. The reason is that this is a common issue that is happening in this world. All of us know that every human being is entitled to their own individual rights, which gives them the ability to defend themselves if someone attempts to take them away from them. This should also be applied to animals for they are the same creatures created by God. However, their abilities to defend themselves from people who violate their rights are very limited. Some animals around the world are not being treated with care. They receive unnecessary harm and threats from various sides without the ability to fight back or speak for themselves.

According to Wikipedia, “animal rights is the idea in which some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests, such as the need to avoid suffering, should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.”

National Perspectives

In Indonesia, animal rights have become a rising concern. Nowadays, there are several non-government organizations that are involved in defending animal rights, such as JAAN (Jakarta Animal Aid Network), Garda Satwa Indonesia, and many more. Jakarta Animal Aid Network has played a big role in protecting animal rights in Indonesia. One of their acts is where they have succeeded to influence the government by banning the ‘dancing monkey’ act (topeng monyet) that used to be very popular in Jakarta. The ‘dancing monkey’ act was one of the famous entertainment in Jakarta where people used monkeys to earn money by forcing them to perform on the streets. Not only that, they were treated brutally, being forced to use masks, dance, and ride bikes in front of the crowds. [Appendix 1]

Since the beginning, this act is illegal. However, nobody cared about this rule until JAAN took action and began the campaign in 2009 regarding this animal abuse. The reason why they started this project was because of the cruelty the humans showed toward the monkeys. Their main website stated three main things that cause animal abuse. The first cause is the pet market. The monkeys are being sold in the market so people can buy and train them to dance and do tricks to be used for profit later on. Secondly, the monkeys are exported to different countries around the world to be used as subjects for research. Lastly, they are made into food to be eaten by humans. The monkeys, also known as Macaques, are caught from the forests and sold for either Rp. 25,000 or Rp. 70,000 which is approximately around US$2 or US$7. Through a lot of investigations, campaigns, meetings, and coordinating with the local government, providing facilities for the confiscated monkeys, and organizing a workshop, finally, JAAN succeeded in getting official approval from the former Governor of Jakarta, Joko Widodo, to ban ‘dancing monkeys’ from the year of 2013 onwards.

Currently, JAAN is working on a project to save the dolphins in Indonesia. They started this project in 2014 and have been working on it since then. The dolphins that are used for shows are not being treated as how they should be treated. According to the JAAN official website, these dolphins traveled by truck for more than 30 hours. In the tanks they’re living in, they’re not able to use their sonar. “Laboratory research in 2012 proved that the water contains eight times as much chlorine levels as officially tolerated by mammals. Excessive amounts of chlorine can cause blindness, skin disorders, and a general decline in health. Conditions in dirty water, usually full of feces, cause infection and slow death in the dolphins.” This shows how much dolphins are indirectly being abused. They’re already suffering to be kept inside the small tanks as they’re not able to move freely, but the way humans take care of them made the situation even worse. It’s extremely cruel for them to be in a swimming pool when a few meters away is their true home, the ocean. It’s stated that in Indonesia, many of the dolphins are being replaced with wild-caught dolphins when they die. However, despite everything that happened to the dolphins, the government of Indonesia has not been taking much action against them. [Appendix 2]

Above is just two examples of animal abuse that happened in Indonesia. There are still a lot of them that haven’t got much attention from the public or non-government organizations that try to protect animal rights. Through this, it’s shown that protecting animals’ rights in Indonesia is still progressing.

Global Perspectives

As for global perspectives, animals’ rights are an issue that is quite well known. One of the well-known international organizations that defend animal rights is WWF (World Wild Life). It’s a huge organization that was founded in Massachusetts, United States and is working with 100 countries around the world. There are a lot of animal species that they are trying to protect. They played a very big role in protecting animal rights. The species of the animals that are stated on their official website are tiger, polar bear, giant panda, orangutan, amur leopard, sea turtle, chimpanzee, elephant, plains bison, vaquita, rhino, dolphins and porpoises, gorilla, whale, bonobo and a lot more. They are divided into three groups: marine animals, primates, and big cats. All of these animals are considered as endangered animals. Hence, WWF is trying to save them from extinction. There are a lot of species that have gone extinct, such as passenger pigeon, dodo, western black rhinoceros, Pyrenean ibex, quagga, Tasmanian tiger, steller’s sea cow, woolly mammoth, great auk, pinta island tortoise, and more. Based on the WWF official website, they’ve stated their ‘6 ambitious goals’ and will work around six key areas which consist of forests, marine, wildlife, freshwater, climate, and food.

“To accomplish our ambitious goals, we work to educate and influence people into making sustainable choices and decisions, including those who work in business and make decisions around the use of natural resources, and those who work in government and set policy that impacts nature.”

World Wild Life (WWF)

Aside from that, not everyone around the world supports animals to have their own rights. According to the website (www.debate.org), 74% of participants support animal rights, while the other 26% don’t. Most of the responses of people who agree with animal rights, talk about how animals should be treated the same way as how human beings are treated. They are saying that animals are also living creatures, they deserved to get a chance to have a peaceful life and have their own family. They do not deserve to be tortured by us, or for us.

On the other hand, 26% of them, have contrary opinions. They’re saying that animals don’t pay taxes as humans do, they don’t have the ability to understand things, especially to choose between good or bad, and they don’t defend the rights of human beings. Basically, in their opinion, animals don’t deserve their own rights, because even humans worked so hard to get their rights, but animals don’t even contribute to society besides giving food to human beings. They think it’s enough for people to provide them with food and shelter in return for the benefits that they’ve given to humans. On the issue of animal experiments, some people are worried about who will be experimented for medical purposes if animals aren’t allowed to be used, because it’s obviously extremely rare for people to volunteer themselves to be experimented on.

Personal Perspectives

In my own perspective, animal abuse is something that we can’t tolerate anymore. It’s an extremely violent thing that’s happening around the world, and many people should take serious action against whoever abused any kind of animal. As said earlier, animals also deserve rights. They should have their own freedom in their own homes. It’s not right for humans to force them to do anything they want, especially when they do not take care of the animals nicely, for their business to get their own benefits.

Some people do not agree to have animal rights, because they said that it’s such a waste for people to spend a lot of money on animals that don’t even pay taxes or work, while poverty can still be founded around the world. I do not completely disagree with them. However, the reason why people have to spend a lot of money to protect these animals is because of humans themselves. If humans don’t bother the animals, take away their homes, use them for their own benefit, or even abuse them, some people don’t have to worry about protecting animal rights. As I said, animals have rights, but they can’t speak for themselves. Hence, we have to protect them since nowadays there are many animal species that have become extinct, while some of them have become endangered. [Appendix 3]

Animals are also living creatures. They need to eat and sleep just like humans in order to survive. They have feelings too. Hence, in my opinion, people who disagree with protecting animal rights should also take action in stopping people from abusing animals. If humans do not start pushing the animals into the corner, animals will be able to live in peace and survive, which we will not have to worry about. We can use the money that is spent for protecting the animals’ rights, for something else, for example reducing water pollution, air pollution, poverty, and many other main issues that are occurring in this world right now.

I have interviewed some students in our school about animal rights, and here are the answers that they have stated.

1. What do you think about animal rights?

“I think animal rights is very important because they aren’t any different from humans and they deserve to get what humans get, for example, humans get proper shelter and food. Some animals are abandoned because their owners no longer want to take responsibility to take care of them.”

– Ashley Liu Buntaram, grade 10 student

2. How often do you see animals being abused with your own eyes?

“Animals are being kicked at the streets. People have pets but they don’t know how to take care of them properly, and that can bring them to death.”

– Brilliana Thalia Wijaya, grade 10 student

3. Do you think that people have taken enough action about protecting animal rights?

“Yes, but it takes time because humans have different perspectives on the way they see animal abuse. For example, I see it as something horrifying and disgusting but to other people, they probably see it as something that gives them benefits.”

– Ashley Kellen Nio, grade 10 student

Conclusions

Even though people are working on how to protect animal rights, the world should take this issue more seriously. If we want our children or even our grandchildren to see the same animals as we do, we have to start protecting them. We have to take care of them now, to give them better shelters, and not take away their food and habitats. It is a serious matter. If animals are continuously being abused, one by one the species will become extinct. The world will not have animals.

So in conclusion, I suppose that organizations such as JAAN which represents Indonesia, and WWF which represents the world, have contributed enough to conserving animals. Even though they can do more by raising awareness about animal rights such as conveying them through social media and fun activities, they’ve done a lot of things to save the animals and their rights, and have inspired people to do the same thing.

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
2. https://www.jakartaanimalaid.com/
3. https://www.worldwildlife.org/
4. https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-animals-have-rights

Introduction

The California Milk Producers Advisory Board (CMAB) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are engaged in legal action. PETA is a group that promotes public awareness of animal rights issues. CMAB is a food division whose mission is to encourage the use of dairy products and California milk. These two groups present the evidence that supports their positions in an effort to justify their behavior. PETS blames CMAP for false advertisement and violation of the rights of animals. The three issues that are important in the context of legal reasoning are justice, lack of clarity, and policy.

Discussion

Regarding the first issue, justice should be investigated, looking at whether the claims made by PETA are fair or not. According to PETA, California cows are milked continuously during their pregnancies, and their calves are then put in crates and marketed as veal. The cows are said to dwell in feces-soaked dirt lots with little vegetation. Therefore, the advertisement that states that “Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California” is false. The universe and frame of the issue is in the state of California. However, there is no factual evidence that there was a false statement from CMAB, meaning that PETA does not have sufficient evidence to be against CMAB. Yet, the significance of the issue is that the case shows how public policies can help a state promote its economy and how external organizations can influence the company’s profitability and brand image.

The issue of the lack of clarity is presented by the ambiguity of interpretation when developing legal reasoning. As such, the court did not properly analyze the case and applied the state’s unfair competition law. This distorted the essence of the case as PETA intended to bring attention to the state of cattle contentment and bring change. However, due to a lack of clarity on their side, the case was interpreted in a way that was fitting the defendant’s defense, and as a result, it was ruled that public entities such as milk boards are not subject to false advertisement suits.

Finally, the case addressed the lack of policy that would contribute to the case. A policy is created to accomplish specific objectives, but a law is created to bring justice to the community. Policies are created in the name of the people, and laws are for the people. A set of regulations that direct any government or organization are referred to as policies. The courts are responsible for carrying out laws, as such, both public policies can influence the decision of the court. Depending on whether the court is satisfied with the policies, its decision can be dictated by this level of satisfaction.

Conclusion

An example of a policy that would impact the ruling of the court can be taken from the meat farming industry. Inspection of cattle prior to slaughter and inspection of meat products following slaughter are also governed by federal regulations. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA examines animals, slaughterhouses, and meat products. FSIS often concentrates on food-borne infections brought on by bacteria like E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria when it comes to food safety (Michael, 2020). By inspecting slaughterhouses, evaluating animal health before slaughter, doing postmortem exams of symptomatic animals as well and routine examinations of killed animals to assure product quality and safety, the FSIS also protects against diseases like BSE. Such a policy would make the court review the case and address the issue of poor treatment of animals by CMAB.

Reference

Michael, M. (2020). Regulatory Authority and Challenges from the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).