+1 (208) 254-6996 [email protected]
  

When responding to peers, you should strive to first understand the reasons they are offering before challenging or critiquing those reasons. One good way of doing this is by summarizing their argument before offering a critique or evaluation.

PEERS RESPONSE:

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Peer Response 3
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Hello Class!

What ethical issues and ethical reasoning were argued?

The main premise behind the video and the topic of animal ethics is that since it is now considered that animals are sentient and therefore have feelings physical and emotion, sadness, excitement, feel pain and be compassionate. We as humans share many of these character traits that animals go through and we then equivocate animals as a sacred right to life, or to embody a sacredness of life and that life holds intrinsic value. Coupled with feelings and emotion and with the expressions of good from an animal like excitement means they are intrinsically good. Therefore, set apart as special and the mistreatment of such life would thereby be considered intrinsically bad, cause pain and a negative utility.

Identify and articulate the moral argument(s) in a careful, systematic way

It is obvious as we humans have a utility in animals for our own production of goods and as tools to accomplish goals and objectives, for example Cows for meat production and milk as well as Police K9 dogs for law enforcement. I do believe that there is a morally good objectivity when such utility of a valuable life like animals as it seems to be the nature of animals to function for its part and yet not violating nor abusing causing pain for the animal. For ages the human race has been riding horses and was a fantastic means for transportation before the invention of the automobile. For the Utilitarian view, this brings a positive greater amount of good for human production and with the well-being of the animal of properly safeguarding their conditions in pursuit of human goals and objectives. But, not so fast, when we view the animals as a higher instrumental value rather than an intrinsic value of life then we tend to pack chickens so dense they cannot move in their cages or worst of all hunting animals for sport prizes and pictures and poaching of animal’s parts such as the Ivory of tusks then we have fallen into the negative utility and immoral treatment of valuable animal life. Where is there a balance between utilization of animals for human use and consumption as well? There is a balance but where do we draw the line?

What do you think about animal welfare? Strive to provide reasons in defense of your position. Make evident connections to the course reading material.

Let’s look at this in its full context, there is no excuse/no room for animal cruelty. However, according to Utilitarianism what can bring the greatest outcome for both humans and animals? I believe, though valuable in intrinsic life, animals naturally have use for Human welfare but only through the considerations of proper Animal welfare for their best well-being and therefore extinguishing unwholesome treatment and cruelty lends the whole discussion as the greatest outcome according to consequentialist. The problem in our society is that as the Earth’s population grows the greater issue we will have with the treatment of animals for food production (cows, chickens), the damage to the Earth’s ecosystems and the environment. We will have to come to problem solving solutions to balance the fair treatment of animals while balancing environmental impact. Economically, for the sake of argument, since the industrial revolution we primarily do not grow our own food anymore and has since become more economical to purchase your fruits and vegetables at the Grocery Store rather than grow it yourself. Since then, the pressure on food security, and caring for animals will be like never before. Can you imagine all the hamburgers made came from the cow? That’s a lot of cows! That’s if fast food meat is even real meat.

Does it make sense to talk about happiness in relation to animals since they are sentient but not cognitive beings?

Is it wrong to catch fish out of the lake, fillet it and eat it at home? I mean I love catfish and at the same time our family dog Benji sits by me at the dinner table as he is a part of the family. Does that mean the catfish is less valuable than Benji? Or is there anyone sad for the fish? I’m uncertain the level of sentience a fish has or was the fish happy before I caught it. I could say Benji expresses such excitement when I tell him lets go for a walk and he trembles ecstatically. It certainly does make sense to talk about happiness because it makes sense with certain animals that we can visibly see their happiness or sadness especially with a dog that knows when they are in trouble. A mosquito or fly can careless if I am happy or upset, but a dolphin’s cognitive abilities can communicate with me and the problem-solving abilities of an Octopus makes me appreciate the animal kingdom. Therefore, those with intrinsically valuable life deems our moral duty to care for animals with our utmost respect.

-Justin

References Used:

Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu (Links to an external site.)

Compassion in World Farming. (2014, January 14). What is animal welfare? Retrieved from

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHELP