Animal_Rights

Firstly, I would like to tell you that you are welcome to leave or look away at any point during the presentation if there are any images which disturb you. As I am limited to a time frame, I am only going to touch on the subjects of the meat industry and animal testing as areas of animal cruelty. However, there are also many other issues, such as, the fur trade, zoos and domestic pet abuse. So you can research these if you find they may be of interest to you. So, what are animal rights' Well, my definition is that, animal rights are the protective laws set up to keep animals safe from harm, abuse, or neglect. Some animal rights include proper feeding and gentle care. As you all may be aware, many acts of cruelty to animals take place all the time, all over the UK and all over the world. However, it is difficult to define some of them as cruel, as opinions can be affected by people’s emotions, cultural background or religion (beliefs). I first would like to introduce you to the issue of animal testing. Of course, you may be aware of some animal rights protests or issues that you have come across in the news, many people feel very strongly about the issue, and are willing to go to great lengths to stop it from happening. But, should animal testing be stopped completely' Or should it continue' You may all have your own opinions on this, but are these opinions influenced by your cultural background' Your emotions' Your values' Christianity says that humans are in charge of the animals, and that we are ‘above’ them. So, if this is true, then it is perfectly acceptable to test on animals in order for the human race to overcome illnesses such as cancer. But, the Buddhist religion suggests that humans and animals are equal, so, in this case, would it only be acceptable to test on animals if we are willing to test on ourselves too' I love the taste of meat. From beef to lamb curry, from a culinary standpoint, food cannot get much better. Yet ironically, despite my adoration, I hate eating it. It’s an odd but true paradox; while my parents happily much away on their steaks at dinner, I regretfully follow suit. I’ve considered becoming a pescetarian. Someone who will only eat fish and no other kind of meat. My reasoning for this is simple, ethics: With the mushrooming of factory farming, previous husbandry has been exchanged for the mass production of meat. This conversion harms not only the animals living, but our own welfare. For the farmed animals, the living conditions are “crates just barely larger than their own bodies”, with the animals bodies so condensed “stress-induced cannibalism” is stimulated. Cattle Slaughterhouses, the common and popular example of the misuse of “animal rights” towards their product. Sickening planted video tapes within IBP, the world’s largest cattle company, illustrated conscious cows being skinned alive, their legs severed as they struggled for freedom. This level of treatment has reached epic proportions. Arguments siting the consumption of meat as a natural, biological evolutionary product fail to consider the differences in methodologies. While our outcome may appear the same, in the end of the day meat ends up devoured at our tables, our current procedures resemble nothing of our previous ancestors. Ethically, can we justify our means to an end' Aristotle stated “Nature does nothing in vain”, eating meat is considered natural, but is our procedure' While the animals’ existence may have been miserable technically their existences result in our own gain. Knowing this was their life in vain' It can be argued that our own ethics are damaged as well with the consumption of meat. For example, in America, 70% of the pigs brought to slaughter carry pneumonia ; the unsanitary meat produced could be silently affecting the consumers’ health. After all, our current panic of Swine flu originated in factory farming . Yet, not only is the meat produced potentially detrimental to our health but the environment suffers as well. In 2006, the United Nations released the statement “the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global”. In 2009, the World Bank estimated the meat industry contributed to a minimum of 51% of all greenhouse gasses, a figure more than all transportation combined . As our world undergoes rapid shifts towards Global warming, it seems we fail to place blame on our actions. Pointing the finger at other industries, such as auto, may perhaps be a safer position. But we must ask ourselves, are we comfortable with the Global results on both the environment and our personal health, or should we adapt' When my friends question my motives and ideals on eating meat, typically they site “evolution” as why it is natural. True, eating meat may be evolution, and as the top of the food chain we have the privilege of power over what we consume. But evolution also suggests that chickens optimally function, and therefore produce optimal meat in flock sizes of around 30. Yet in today’s average farm, there are around 300,000 chickens in one building. It may be called evolution, but it can equally be called forced and inorganic. Furthering the argument, while many argue that it’s a natural process to consume eggs, can we say it is natural for a chicken to be deliberately starved and dehydrated' The shock of the experience produces eggs, the eggs we most likely have consumed during some part of our life. It’s natural to consume turkeys. Our ancestors did. But do you find it natural to consume a turkey which steroids have propelled such a rapid growth that the animal has grown too large to reproduce' All 300 million turkeys born annually in the United States are the result of artificial insemination. Globally, the majority of religions highlight the idea of compassion and kindness. In Buddhism, to achieve the four Noble Truths and consequently Nirvana, one must understand “the proper understanding of Suffering, Cause of Suffering, relief of Suffering and the way to end suffering” Eating meat would be a violation of a moral code, and a sin. Similar emphasis on the not eating meat resonates in Hinduism, Jainism, and certain sectors of Sikhism and Judaism. From this, why is it more acceptable to eat some animals than others' In the British culture it was be considered wrong to consume, say, a dog, for example. Yet in China, it is quite common for dogs to be eaten, in Peru Guinea Pig is a delicacy and horse is very popular in France. Why is this' Why is it considered more ‘wrong’ in the UK to eat a cat than it is to eat a chicken' Surely, this is wrong of us as humans to decide which animals deserve to live over others' For every “pro-animals” claim, there are “pro-meat” claims of equal caliber and weight. Poultry producer, Robert “Butch” Johnson assures “Today’s farmers treat their livestock with the same caring concern as ordinary people treat their pets.” It’s impossible to find the truth in the ethics of eating animals because there is no truth, nothing is concrete. It’s all a personal interpretation on the situation. It is shaped by our own emotions and biases. Is “slaughtering” animals “murder”' Or, is it a delicious advantage of our location on the food chain' There is no “right” answer, which is why my position becomes difficult. I am sensitive, perhaps overly so. After all, the thought of the animal’s eyes before they are being slaughtered makes me get teary, and thinking of the process the creature endures would make me find the most perfect beef wellington look vile. The information I have stated clearly illustrates my stance and my blatantly obvious bias. In the end, I will not stop eating meat. I could easily give up dairy and live off vegan substitutes, I already partially do. The lack of choice at restaurants would not matter to me, as long as I knew I wasn’t hurting animals. Yet there is the tricky situation of sushi. As marine biologist, Dr. Sylvia Earl, has stated fish feel fear, they have personalities, and they as well live in unsanitary conditions. I am a hypocrite. I feel disgusted with myself when I consume the creatures, but I cannot quit. In this sense, I understand and sympathize both sides of the argument, the love that humans have for their meat, and their yearning to consume it. Until there is a vegan substitute for fish I will remain in a similar position. But, deep down, I’m unsure of why I feel guilty when I eat meat. Is it because I own animals myself, so I feel emotionally attached to them' But a lion doesn’t feel emotionally attatched to a zebra or antelope does it' I mean, if it did, wouldn’t eat starve it starve itself' So, from this, do animals feel emotions' Do they have souls' Emotion in animals considers the question of what emotions certain species feel, in the sense that humans understand it. The debate concerns primarily mammals and birds, although emotions have also been postulated for other vertebrates and even for some invertebrates. However, the characteristics we associate as ‘sadness’ may not be the same for different species of animal. Thus, our culture and our own senses can lead us to be bias. As, the human race has learned that certain facial expressions mean that we are feeling certain emotions, how can we be sure that these apply to animals' Different answers have been suggested throughout human history, by animal lovers, scientists, philosophers, and others who interact with animals, but the core question has proven hard to answer since we can neither obtain spoken answers, nor assume anthropomorphism. As a result, on the one hand society recognizes animals can feel pain, by criminalizing animal cruelty. Often expressions of apparent pleasure are ambiguous as to whether this is emotion, or simply innate response, perhaps to approval or other hard-wired cues. The ambiguity is a source of much controversy in that there is no certainty which views, if any, are "right". That said, extreme behaviorists would say that human "feeling" is also merely a hard-wired response to external stimuli. In recent years, research has become available which expands prior understandings of animal language, cognition and tool use, and even sexuality. Emotions arise in the mammalian brain, or the limbic system, which human beings share in common with other mammals as well as many other species. This presents both a scientific dilemma — how can we tell' — and a potential ethical one — if true, what does it mean' Research suggests that canines can experience negative emotions in a similar manner to people, including the equivalent of certain chronic and acute psychological conditions. The classic experiment for this was Martin Seligman's experiments and theory of learned helplessness at the University of Pennsylvania in 1965, as an extension of his interest in depression: A dog that had earlier been repeatedly conditioned to associate a sound with electric shocks did not try to escape the electric shocks after the warning was presented, even though all the dog would have had to do is jump over a low divider within ten seconds, more than enough time to respond. The dog didn't even try to avoid the stimulus; it had previously "learned" that nothing it did mattered. A follow-up experiment involved three dogs affixed in harnesses, including one that received shocks of identical intensity and duration to the others, but the lever which would otherwise have allowed the dog a degree of control was left disconnected and didn't do anything. The first two dogs quickly recovered from the experience, but the third dog suffered chronic symptoms of clinical depression as a result of this perceived helplessness. A further series of experiments showed that (similar to humans) under conditions of long term intense psychological stress, around 1/3 of dogs do not develop learned helplessness or long term depression. Instead these animals somehow managed to find a way to handle the unpleasant situation in spite of their past experience. The corresponding characteristic in humans has been found to correlate highly with an explanatory style and optimistic attitude and lower levels of emotional rigidity regarding expectations, that views the situation as other than personal, pervasive, or permanent. Such studies highlighted similar distinctions between people who adapt and those who break down, under long term psychological pressure, which were conducted in the 1950s in the realm of brainwashing. Since this time, symptoms analogous to clinical depression, neurosis and other psychological conditions have been in general accepted as being within the scope of canine emotion. So,what do you think' Do animals have souls' Are they ours to do with as we wish' Or should we respect them, protect them and care for them' My personal opinion must, by now, be obvious to you all. I believe, we should always try to treat animals as we would want to be treated. If there are rules, known commonly as ethics, which guide us into a reasonable way of treating eachother, then shouldn’t these be used upon the care of animals' I mean, it’s only fair. Isn’t it'