Human Relationship with Animals and the Animal Rights Movement - Annotated Bibliography Example

Essay Proposal INTRODUCTION Moral obligations are the courses of action to which an individual is bound to by the principles of right and wrong behavior. Human beings are the most powerful species on earth since they have the ability to think, reason and communicate effectively; therefore they can influence the behavior of other species, and so are responsible for the well being of their fellow creatures (BBC, 2014). All creatures deserve moral considerations; a morally considerable being is one that can be wronged in a morally relevant sense and it is only humans that can respond to claims of being wronged in one way or another, in the purposeful harm done on animals by human beings is morally wrong, this is because: first of all, animals posses some intrinsic sense of right, secondly, it causes pain to the creature and thirdly, it brings about effects on the nature of our moral sensibilities as ethical agents (Carbone, 2004). Our relationship with animals has existed since the time of our ancestors, this relationship is maintained by the obligations the two groups have towards each other, and human beings carry the intelligence and thus can decide on what to do to the non-human animals. Moral obligations are both social and individual, certain practices or institutions usually have an effect on the potential ethical view within an individual (Noel Stewart, 2009). In light of this, criteria for judgment used should take into consideration the manner in which certain acts, practices and institutions have the effect of influencing or distorting ethical life in a society (Garner, 2005). It is not morally right to exploit animals through: overworking the beasts of burden, constant hunting game meat, killing them to obtain fur for making clothes and ivory or skins, using these animals for laboratory experiments that cause pain, not feeding the animals, and environmental pollution. Therefore we should treat non-human animals in the proper and ethical way. (Klempner, 2002) IMPORTANCE Animal right activists and institutions have come together to curb the danger exposed to animals, this topic is important as it emphasizes on the ethical obligations we as human beings have towards animals. The increase in demand for animal products and scientific experiments has brought with it an increase in animal exploitation; this has considerably degraded the morals of the society and its members. (Kheel, 2008). Animal exploitation has become more pervasive unlike the recent years, the abuse and suffering of non-human animals also lowers human ethical capacities and sensibilities. When we live in a society that allows and enjoys the benefits of animal suffering, then we are degrading the ethical sensibilities of an individual member. (Patton, 2006) This topic was chosen in light with the increase in animal exploitation, it is aimed at emphasizing on the moral obligations towards animals and how the lack of observing these obligations has brought an increase in animal suffering and degradation of the society’s values and norms, since new individuals entering the society adopt these practices without knowing its effect. It is in the best interest that we protect and improve to the best of our capacities the quality of the ethical life as a whole. CASE STUDY The Animal Rights movement is a social movement aimed at bringing to an end the moral distinctions that exist between human and non-human animals; it seeks to abolish the use of animals in research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries (Noel Stewart, 2009). This movement is one of the few social movements that was created and sustained by philosophers, for example, Peter Singer and Tom Reagan (Singer, 2007). The movement was founded in the UK in the 1970s by a number of Oxford post-graduate students, now called “Oxford-Group” led by Roslind and Stanley Godlovitch. (SINGER, 1985). The movement can be split into: animal rights advocates who believe that their basic interests are in line with the moral rights of animals, the Utilitarian liberationists argue that the suffering of animals should be incorporated into any moral philosophy to exclude the animals is discrimination termed as Speciesism. (Ryder, 2006) This case study will seek to describe the organizational structure of the movement, its view on the moral obligations of human beings towards animals and how these obligations are achieved, through different methods of data collection, for example, questionnaire, the research study will be able to identify different cases that the movement has encountered and the success stories they were able to manage. The way in which they protect the animals that have been saved from their oppressors and in the end how they find new homes for these animals. The case study is aimed at answering a number of questions; What is the main duty of the movement? Who is liable to become a member and how does one become a member? To what extent is mistreatment of an animal termed as exploitation or abuse? Which continents of the world is this movement found? What kind of action is taken against a person found exploiting non human animals? How many cases have you encountered as a movement and was the reaction of respondents? LIST OF REFERENCES Primary sources of information. Observations: this source was important as it will enable the researcher to obtain first hand information as to how animals are exploited, for example visiting a coat factory and seeing how fur is removed from the animals or visiting an animal shelter and observing how the people take care of the dogs and cats in the shelter. Tape Recording: Recording meetings or demonstrations held by the Animal movement society in a particular area, and taking into account how they carry out their affirmative action on animal cruelty. Secondary Sources of information. BBC, 2014. Animal Rights. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml [Accessed 28 January 2014]. This article discusses whether non-human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights. it decsribes how animal rights teach us that some things are morally wrong to do to animals. Carbone, L., 2004. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy.. First ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Covers the laboratory welfare of animals used fro experiments their rights and how these rigts are being violated by human beings, written by an expert who specialises on animal welfare and well being. Garner, R., 2005. Animal Ethics. 12th ed. New York: Polity Press. Outlines all the rulles set by the animamail movement and animal welfare groups as to how animals should be treated. Animals as stated by advocates aso have rights and taes should be cnsidered when handling them. Kheel, M., 2008. Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective.. 1st ed. New York: Landham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. The ecology contains many different kinds of creatures and any kind of pollution makes the ecology anstable and unfit for these creatures to live therefore some die, this bok emphasises on gender sensitivity and brings out the view that women are becoming major actors when it comes to animal rights. Klempner, G., 2002. Our moral obligations to non-human animals. [Online] Available at: http://electronicphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/05/our-moral-obligations-to-non-human.html. [Accessed 28 January 2014]. This source was chosen because it presents the personal view of an individual who agrees that humans have a moral obligation towards other animals, regardless of whether the animals exhibit moral behavior, he states that calling animals 'brute' should be non-controversial, since some non-human animals have the ability to show intelligence and discrimination in the use of signs. Noel Stewart, 2009. Ethics: an introduction to moral philosophy.. 1st ed. New York: Polity Press. An excellent and very readable book, it includes animal rights and environmental ethics and shows how moral philosophy comes into play in the ethical obligations of human beings to other non-human animals. Patton, W. &., 2006. A Communion of Subjects_Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics. 1st ed. New York: Oxford Publishers. Social institutions also have an obligation to non-human animals since they affect how an individual perceives these animals, science is the major actor in animal exploitation since it uses different kinds of animals like monkeys and rats to carry out experiments. therefore this book looks at how the different institutions influence ethical obligations. Ryder, R., 2006. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Third ed. New York: Berg. Animal exploitation has become more widespread than in the old days, today a lot of animal activists have come up to change the attitudes of human beings towards animals, it closely looks at how science considers animals and the ethical obligations societal institutions like the church have towards ensuring animal welfare. SINGER, P., 1985. In Defense of Animals. 1st ed. New York: Basil Blackwell. Peter Singer was a philosopher aimed at abolishing animal exploitation and was a member of the Animal Movement, this book is thus produced to defend animals and bring to light how animals feel when they are hurt or are in pain, through exploitation and mistreatment, giving the research study more depth in concern with animall feelings. Singer, P. a. M. J., 2007. The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter/The Ethics of What We Eat,. 1st ed. New York: Rodale Press.. Human beings have a passion fro animal products both consumable and non-consumable products, this book describes how human wants are increasing animal exploitation, and decreasing human conciousness of their moral obligations towards non-human animals. Bibliography BBC, 2014. Animal Rights. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml [Accessed 28 January 2014]. Carbone, L., 2004. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy.. First ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Garner, R., 2005. Animal Ethics. 12th ed. New York: Polity Press. Kheel, M., 2008. Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective.. 1st ed. New York: Landham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Klempner, G., 2002. Our moral obligations to non-human animals. [Online] Available at: http://electronicphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/05/our-moral-obligations-to-non-human.html [Accessed 28 January 2014]. Noel Stewart, 2009. Ethics: an introduction to moral philosophy.. 1st ed. New York: Polity Press.. Patton, W. &., 2006. A Communion of Subjects_Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics. 1st ed. New York: Oxford Publishers. Ryder, R., 2006. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Third ed. New York: Berg. SINGER, P., 1985. In Defense of Animals. 1st ed. New York: Basil Blackwell,. Singer, P. a. M. J., 2007. The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter/The Ethics of What We Eat,. 1st ed. New York: Rodale Press.. Read More