Wednesday, October 27, 2010

MWF 11am

19 comments:

Luis Briceno said...

I personally understand what people say about animal cruelty. I think it’s the most perverse and horrendous thing a living being can do to another. This does not mean that I will stop eating meat; it means that we need to respect the nutrition and welfare these animals provide to us. We need to give these animals a pain free death. I am not Jewish but I know they respect the death of the animals they consume and bleed them out which is a pain free death. With today’s technology I don’t think this sound to impossible. As long as giving animals rights….. They don’t understand what rights we are talking about.

Unknown said...

Well, this is a very sad issue that we have been facing for so many years. As animals do no express their feelings by speaking, we think that it is rigth to abuse them. That is the same thing that happens to a person who does not speak; by not having the ability to speak we think that they cannot express their emotions or feelings but this is wrong. For the past years, I have been wondering why we don't consume things that are produced by nature and stop eating ANY type of meat(animals). It would be healthier for us if we thing about other ALTERNATIVES instead of killing these poor animals. Also, we don't even imagine all the stuffs they go thru before being in our plates! If we think like that, we will safe many animals' lifes.

Tyler Richman said...

Although some have argued that the consumption of meat is morally wrong, they fail to fully accept the fact that meat provides humans with essential nutrients needed for survival. Yes, we can get our protein and essential vitamins from supplements and other non-animal items, but they are not truly organic sources. The treatment of animals is an extremely controversial issue when it comes to producing meat for the masses to buy and eat. Kosher laws specify ways that an animal should be slaughtered for in a respectable fashion. If stricter laws were put into place regarding the treatment of animals in line to be killed, there would not be as much controversy and opposing positions. The use of animals in laboratory testing can be extremely immoral, which should definitely be taken into great consideration when deciding laws. Cruel and harmful treatment during laboratory testing is a great concern, but not as great regarding the actually slaughtering for food. Prior to the slaughter, however, animals should be treated with compassion. Humans are undoubtedly more necessary to the world than animals are, but this does no excuse the unfair treatment of the earth's creatures. We fail to take this into consideration and remain ignorant that animal's do experience pain and need to be put down in a less evasive and torturous way.

Mercedes said...

When I eat meat I honestly don’t think about animal cruelty or the ecosystem. I personally don’t eat much meat. I eat poultry and fish; in occasion I do eat red meat. I personally would love to stop eating meat because I love animals and I can’t imagine the suffering those animals go through just for humans consumption. I can recall seen PETA video of a slaughter house, these animals were treated horrendously. That night I wasn’t able to meat or any source of food that contain any animal. That video stuck to me like glue. Several days later I was able to eat poultry because I was so tempted by my family and friends who love eating meat. I try to forget about that video when I am eating because I stop eating and then I feel so guilty that am helping slaughter this animal by my consumption of meat. I think it’s a habit that most of us human have. In my Hispanic culture is very hard to give up meat when it’s everywhere around me. When I wasn’t eating meat I felt so good that I was helping animals, but my family thought there was something wrong with me. I honor all those people who are vegetarian and vegan because there able to accomplish something am not able to do yet.

Unknown said...

From the human history we learn animals are our ancestor; from this point of view it would seems to be wrong to eat them. Only the people that are cannibal would think that such thing is right. In reality, we are so addicted to meat that we do not have time to think about the circumstances of the animal’s death as well as its life. In the past, only rich people could afford meat; it was a pleasure for them to be eat animals because its shows prestige and wealth. Nowadays, thing change at least in the United States almost anyone can buy meats and enjoy a feast. Consequently, people have less and less compassion for animals and kill and eat them anyhow with no feel of guilt.

Unknown said...

According to the Bible, we were created based on God’s image and he gave us the power to control everything on earth. I believe this is when human realize and execute their power. They discriminates animals choosing what animals are consider meat and which one can be view as a pet. Personally, I eat meat and I do not think of the animal’s origin and they kill it. In fact, my culture also affects my view on animal’s right. Sincerely, I do not feel that animals have right; they are just here to help us accomplish our goals. That’s it certainly and egocentric thought; it was only once I lived in America that I start to think differently. But anyhow I still eat meat without guilt and I do not think that I might become a vegan soon.

Jose Brown said...

There is another voice speaking in the collective conscious other than the halo bearing angel and red clad devil; it is the impartial voice of profit. We sit here and problematize animal cruelty and demonize meat eaters, all the while proudly boasting our own moral
infallibility.

Jose Brown said...

The truth is, in the end, we do nothing substantial enough to curb a system we repeatedly criticize. Apart from changing our own personal dietary habits, what is there left to do? The extremists among us may want to join PETA, the politically active may try to lobby congress to change certain laws, but the popularity of such movements isn’t appreciable enough to sway the standard.
On a personal level, I think its atrocious to slay an animal for any sake whatsoever. I can only say this for myself, however. Its a personal decision based on my own perception of other sentient beings. I attribute the same ability I have to feel physical pain to other obviously conscious creatures. I cannot speak for anyone else however. I believe morality is a byproduct of culture, and the culture we live in has been in place long before we got here. Indeed we are beings that are capable of free thought. But I believe free thought is a potential that is very much restricted by the strong lull that is one’s culture. We are born into a world where all we see is the pristine packaging that is disguising a very bitter reality. Most of us don’t want to read the ingredient labels wether literally or metaphorically speaking. We adapt to this world, the same as any organism adapts to its given environment, so that what is morally unacceptable to the enlightened (or non-enlightened, depending on how you see it), is the “norm” to the next. I’m sure many of us may want to feel guilty. We may want to put a sad face on when we watch those PETA videos they are now prescribing at schools, but this guilt is felt through vanity because we’re ashamed to admit that we’re as comfortable as ducks in water in our world.
I think its interesting to note that at one time in the evolution of the planet, oxygen in the atmosphere was very scarce. The organisms that existed thrived on methane and carbon dioxide as well as other gases that were in more abundance than oxygen. In fact, oxygen was deadly to those organisms that survived off of the other gases. Evolution through natural selection gave birth to creatures known as photosynthesizers who converted sunlight and the carbon dioxide, that was then in overwhelming abundance, into their food supply, the byproduct was oxygen. These organisms had no predators and the carbon dioxide essential to their thriving was everywhere. They polluted the air with their wasteful byproduct of oxygen and in the end converted all of earth’s atmosphere into a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen, the air we require for respiration today. The biodiversity that existed in that ancient earth was all but slaughtered by the changing environment, and only the photosynthesizers flourished. That is until the once abundant carbon dioxide began to dwindle, only then did the populations of photosynthesizing organisms begin to balance out. Then consumers which breath in oxygen and excrete carbon dioxide were evolved and now our current atmosphere is the consequence of the relationship between producers and consumers One can anthropomorphize this and say that that was an incredibly immoral thing of the photosynthesizers to do. We would be hypocrites of course, because we now thrive on the success of those past conquerers, which is our breathable atmosphere.
The point here is that other than use the natural attributes gained through evolution to propagate the species, an organism has very little choice in the course of its evolution. Our intelligence and ability to manipulate our surroundings is an evolutionary trait that allows us to survive in our environment. The fact that there are 7 billion people in the world is a strong indication that we’re doing a pretty good job at this task. Like the photosynthesizers, we are only doing what we can to best promote our own species, regardless of the consequences it bears on the other species on Earth, or ourselves.

Jose C. Rodriguez said...

As long as ignorance and apathy are commonplace in food industry, the events that occur daily at these farm-factories, laboratory facilities, etc., will remain as such- a daily occurrence. As discussed in class, there is a certain disconnection between the animal and the person eating it; I believe this to be the heart of the problem. There are some people in the world who don't see animals as nothing more than lowly beasts- Many comments posted on YouTube speak of revenge and putting the abusive workers in the place of the animals- it solves nothing; there must be an understanding that we as human beings are not that different from the creatures that get abused. I blame the problem on a general lack of education and more importantly, interest in the problem at hand.
If more people saw these videos and read about the horrors that happen to these creatures, do you think they would continue to eat meat as often?

vanessa said...

I believe that us humans don't understand how cruel some people are treating animals. No one puts themselve in the animals position, I bet no one would like it. I understand that some people need to eat but it does not mean we a have to be so cruel putting so many anti-biotics in the animal to prevent deseases, we should make farms bigger so animals don't have to be so close together. We should find a better way to feed everyone in America. we should adapt Europian or South America stradegies on how to breed and treat animals.

Patricia V Ruiz said...

The problem of animal cruelty and consumption at the expense of others is an obvious concern for me. I try my best to live an organic lifestyle. I’ve replaced many of my dishes that include meat with alternatives such as vegetables and soy products, yet, as Jose Brown explained, the influence of my admiration for culture prevents me to become 100% vegetarian. As Jose said, “Apart from changing our own personal dietary habits, what is there left to do?” Well I think that it just it. We can only influence others by setting those standards for ourselves. I became a vegetarian for three months and I can honestly confess I did not miss meat. But one thing I couldn’t do is let my new diet, dictate what I value, and that is open- mindedness about culture and traditions. The reason I gave up on my quest to an animal-friendly diet was the because I was going to Germany for a summer, and I was not going to carry a diet that prohibited me from tasting traditional German dishes. The memories of the visits to the biergartens on the outskirts of Munich, the bratwurst sausage, and the seasoned rotisserie chicken, wouldn’t have been the same if I ate merely a pretzel.
I respect and enjoy being part of cultures of all kinds. Be it in Germany or in a Buddhist camp where I enjoyed a few days of veganism.

Now in Miami, I am an omnivorous, I rarely eat meat, but if I do I buy local, organic, cruelty- free animal products. Rather than buying “cheaper” animal products at the expense of mutilating innocent creatures in an industrial hell. If I were to give up on my views on cultures and their traditions, I’d probably be a vegan. Our species after all, is meant to carry a vegetarian diet by nature. But for the mean time, this is who I am.
There’s no doubt these animals will feel some sort of pain, regardless of the type of killing. It's question of choosing the lesser evil.

Isaac Chayo said...

The rights of animals can only be guaranteed in a society where they are classified as sentient and pain-bearing beings. However, there seems to be a hierarchy in our continuum of evolution. Why is it that we do not consider killing and eating vegetation immoral? Perhaps this is because of its lack of particularly desirable cognitive traits. Our ability to judge another specie, seems to be limited to our correlative observations and behavioral comparisons. Could it be plausible that an apple feels quite a different qualia of pain than that which we are personally familiar with? At a certain point in the 'complexity' of a specie, we begin to deem it immoral to restrain, harm, oppress, or subjugate. This is perhaps because we come to a particular level of functional understanding. My question is.. At what point do we draw the line between wrong or right? Rats are continuously tortured and elicited into pathologically natured experimentations-- all in the name of some righteous goal or favorable result.
It is proven that developed countries produce far too much, consume a portion, and waste the rest. It is the fuel for technological and industrial dominance.
If we could turn the tides and initiate a reduction in our demands, then perhaps we could cultivate an environment where animals could be raised responsibly and then humanely consumed. It is truly gut-wrenching to see the manner in which we oppress these beings.. I know that some people even keep chickens, cows, goats, pigs, all as pets. They are capable of expressing taddle tale signs of affection, concern, and remarkably complex emotions. If I had to kill an animal before eating it, I would have to ensure that he/she lives a fulfilling life beforehand.
We are short-circuiting the life experience inherent in many facets of consciousness, and it is quite saddening to say the least.

WhereDoIStart said...

I strongly agree that animals should have rights and should not be mistreated, but I am powerless to overcome my own “meat addiction.” I don’t eat a lot of meat, I get more of my protein from fish and from vegetables but if a hamburger is convenient, I don’t bother to consider how the meat was raised. I have seen videos that depict the maltreatment of animals but they have never affected me enough to put me off eating chicken fingers or what have you. I have a similar mindset I would assume to most consumers who buy the neatly packaged meat at the supermarket. I wish that animals were not treated so badly, even from a nutritional point of view it is bad, since animals raised in bulk are fed steroids and antibiotics regularly. I don’t see how this will change though. I would happily vote in favor of laws to protect animal rights but I feel that one more person abstaining from meat will not really solve this crisis.

pedro said...

Do we have some similar duty not to ‘abuse’ plants or rocks? Of course not. That is because plants and rocks cannot suffer. The fact that we have a duty to not abuse animals (and to stop it when it is happening) means that animals have just claims on our conduct towards them…and this means that they have rights. This is not a nebulous concept. It is one that we can consistently apply to both human and non-human animals–but not to plants or rocks. (Again, not making an equivalency argument here…human animals have more and more sophisticated rights than non-human animals.) Plants and rocks are objects which can be used as we wish, but our current Pope, for instance, thinks that non-human animals have a God-given dignity which rules out such objectification.
But perhaps rights always have parallel duties as you suggest above and this rules out non-human animals because they can have no such duties. But, I think prenatal human animals have rights–including a right to life. (Which, incidentally, I think most non-human animals do not have.) But it is either absurd to think that such prenates have duties, or, if they do, they need to be carried out by a surrogate. But then notice that non-human animals can also have moral duties carried out by a surrogate. Owners can use resources on them in proportion with the common good.

Rufino Leon said...

Animal rights is a very hot topic in society today from the rallies and protests of PETA to the meat industry. People usually tend to fall into one of these two ends of the spectrum and tend to support their ideals rather staunchly. The question of whether animals truly deserve rights on the same level of humans is however an entirely separate level. The text gives us three different arguments for the rights of animals the one that holds the most ground being the one of Peter Singer. Singer put forth the idea that animals deserve rights because they can feel pain. However this itself is not a valid reason for the establishment of rights because people and animals are not the only things that feel pain. Can we not say that insects feel pain as well? At the same time we must understand how difficult and costly it would be for the world to give all animals rights not only from how numerous they are, but additionally it would prove catastrophic to the food industry and the economies of the world. People put forth that we can function like India, a society which does not consume meat. However, what they fail to understand is that this idea has been ingrained in the society of India for thousands of years and is a central part of their religion. This would not hold well with the rest of the world and would take lifetimes to implement and cement. I believe that while animals do deserve certain rights, they do not need to be on par with human rights and are largely contingent on the owner or caretaker to acknowledge.

Jamil said...

I agree that animals deserve right, but the question is what animals deserve rights? Do insects deserve rights? what about worms? It is true that animals are sentient beings and are also afraid to lose their lives. With that fear of losing their lives comes the fear of pain. Animals are used for experiments and testing with adverse effects in their physical and emotional beings. The are paraded around in circuses and get "taken care of" in zoos, even though we as their keepers are trying to keep them in as much in their natural environment as possible, the animals will never maintain who and what they are.

Raphael Rosenwasser said...

On the topic of female circumcision I believe that people have freedom of choice. If the women agree and they consider as part of their religion like it is with male circumcision than I do not see anything wrong with it. People have the right to believe and follow any religion they want. But if women are being forced into doing it, it should not be allowed. Not because it is female circumcision but because you are going against the will of someone and that should not be allowed in most cases. So female circumcision can be a branch off of a different religion. People should not judge what others choose to believe in.

Anonymous said...

I grew up eating meat and was basically raised with the idea that meat should be part of my diet. Therefore, I like and enjoy it. However, I do realize now that meat is not necessary for human survival and that these meat-eating habits can be reversed but how can do that when I’ve been trained to believe that certain animals are meant to be eaten. As far as giving animal rights, there is no doubt that the animals in slaughter houses are being treated horribly and the thought of these animals contracting diseases from one another and then being injected with antibiotics is simply repulsive. Unfortunately, these are things not many of us think about when we actually consume it. I believe animals deserve rights to a certain extent such as having the right to not be treated the way they are in these factories now whether or not it is right to eat the meat is a moral issue. I think that America should organize more community-raised farms and expand this new trend so that the other mainstream corporations can be brought down.

conconcorel said...

I stopped eating red meat and chicken one year ago, off course I thought about animal rights back then. And that’s is how I started asking myself all these questions about rightness and wrongness regardless of what culture imposes, specially my culture. In Argentina, is more than an addiction to eat meat, it’s tradition, but even though is not that often to see the mass production cruelty that we can observe in USA, there is when the issue of meat necessity arose in my life.
I certainly think that the thought of owning animals is in itself a little bizarre. I don’t see why human beings think they can own another being’s life just because is not as conscious about the world as we are. The abolitionism thoughts are pointing to the right direction. I agree with the idea of acknowledging rights to them, I don’t see why there has to be a differentiation just because they are not humans. I’m not saying to give them personhood, but just to appreciate that there are other levels of life, with less capability of understanding, and less intelligence but this is not a reason to enslave them as products killing little by little our sensibility towards their existence.