Relevant Differences Between Domesticated And Wild Animals example essay topic

Chris Mahoney Enviornmental Studies INST. Stead Spring 3 MIDTERM 1.) How exactly would you distinguish Jonathan Swift's 'Modest Proposal' and modern factory farming of veal, cows, chickens, and pigs? What are the relevant similarities, if any? Relevant differences? There are many different viewpoints for why it is wrong to torture and slaughter animals for the needs and purpose of humans. Animals play a major role in the diets of mankind, and without these ingredients men will loose their enjoyment and tend to suffer.

In the words of peter singer, "It is here, on our dinner table and in our neighborhood supermarket or butcher's shop, that we are brought into direct touch with the most extensive exploitation of other species that has ever existed". (Jardins, 113) The living conditions of livestock on factory farms are so bad that they are routinely given antibiotics just to keep them from dying. This enables the factory farming industry to keep conditions deplorable without losing too much of their "product". But animals are living beings. They deserve better than to be just kept alive.

People have to realize that animals are species just like we are with a heart, body, and mind. For example, Jonathan swift's Modest Proposal is very similar to the modern factory farming. In swift's Proposal, disadvantage kids are similar to animal raised in a farm, waiting to be used for human necessity in order to survive. In addition, animals, infants, and as well as mentally disadvantage kids do not have moral agents (being free / rational ) because of their lack of ability to understand and choose. However, they still have a moral standing and have a purpose for life. So we as humans cannot do just anything to or with them.

The very thought and concept of eating your own kin is devastating and devilish. These farmers view animal as non human like creatures because of the lack of knowledge it maintain so therefore it's not worth nothing in life. In the concept of Bentham who stated, "The question is not can they reason? Nor can they talk? But can they suffer?" On regards to his concept, every being or species can suffer and feel pain.

Its really devastating when a person is using animal products for a decoration, trophy, or to pamper themselves then they are inflicting pain and suffering on another living being just so that they can indulge themselves in something that is truly unnecessary by all accounts. The most conclusive and effective decision anyone can take to stop this descent into insanity is to give up meat and become vegetarian or vegan. In the meantime, a huge step forward can be made by outlawing factory farming... Factory farming has to end, we have to stop this unhealthy and obsessive promotion of animal protein, we have to begin treating animals with respect and consideration. 2.) Do you see any morally relevant differences between domesticated and wild animals? Would Singer?

Would Regan? Do you see any morally relevant differences between animals threatened with extinction and those that are not? Their is mainly no morally differences between a domesticated and a wild animal. They both are the same species that contains moral standing in life. Domesticated and wild animals both can suffer and feel pain.

My thoughts can be similar to Singer, who suggest that animals have a moral standing based on the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment. However, Regan suggest that animals have moral standing which derives from the inherent values found in subjects of a life. He also suggest that all animals are the same and are subjects to life. However, there is a different on the bringing up and nature domesticated animals versus a wild animal in the environment. Domestic animals are those animals that people take care of, like pets or farm animals. Wild animals care for themselves must find their own food, water, shelter, and space.

With few exceptions, wild animals are difficult or impossible to care for. They often grow to be larger, stronger, and more dangerous than owners expect or can manage. Their nutritional and social needs are generally unknown, and recognizing medical problems is difficult for the untrained individual. They can even pose a danger to human health and safety through disease and parasites. On regards of singer, He recognizes that it is conceivable that human interference could improve the conditions of wild animals, but threw past failures, he recommends a policy of leaving wild animals alone as much as possible. Animals that are threatened with extinction seemed to have more rights than animals that are not extinct.

And it's people who are to blame for most of the danger to animals, because our activities are destroying the places the animals like to live in. for example, the American bold eagle was a world wide dilemma because it was becoming extinct. Humans made sure of the awareness of the eagle and that no one would destroy the last of its species. However, there is a cycle of life and death that must happen in order to keep the ecological systems balance. Based on the view of Reagan, he claims an animal that is part of a member of an endangered species has no special moral status. Certain animals must come extinct to develop a new breed of species. In other words, without death there would not be any new life.

We as human have to die out to keep our community balanced. Extra Credit 1) in the well known Dr. Seuss book, the Lorax, it is the Lorax who snakes for the trees". Can anyone truly speak for the trees... the Dr. Seuss book the Lorax was basically about a character called On celer who discovered a beautiful country where ponds were wet, clouds were clear and Truffila trees grew. Ignoring the warnings of the Lorax, who spoke for the trees, he chopped down all the trees to make useless objects and in the end created a lifeless desert.

I truly think that anyone can speak for the trees like Lorax did in Dr Seuss's book. The environmentalist speaks concerning the mean full value of the tree everyday. It's good to have environmentalist to speak for the tree and for nature, which will give children both warning and a hope for the future of their environment. Having concerning people who care about their community, will open the way for a discussion on how the impact of individual actions on the environment will affect ecological system until it is too late. We must protect to earth, so Mother Nature can protect its people.