Human and Animal Interrelationships - Essay Example

Human and Animal Interrelationships al Affiliation) Should it matter how animals are housed and treated if they are going to be killed for consumption later? Introduction Statistics shows that approximately 8 billion animals are raised in American homesteads for food each year. The majority of these animals are raised in factory farms. In the US, no federal laws are protecting these animals thus making them the least protected class of animals. Various Non-Governmental Organizations have raised concerns about the treatment of farm animals in factory farms. The American Humane Association has been very vocal in advocating for the humane treatment of farm animal in transit to slaughter houses (Webster, 2007). However, the movement has faced many setbacks in raising the national awareness of animal welfare. Conservationists too have raised concerns about the welfare of farm animals. Therefore, this paper will provide a discussion based on two perspectives that focus on the need for fair treatment of farm animals’ moment before they are slaughtered. The Ethicist and Philosophers’ Perspective Philosophical arguments usually evoke theories and beliefs about the concept of morality and ethics. In reality, these can be hard to understand and apply. Philosophy is beneficial since it provides an explanation for individual motivations and why the people behave the way they do. A philosophical argument can only be used as a way of justifying or condemning a particular action toward an animal. It is important to understand that not all people who participate in animal movement advocate for animal rights. Historically speaking, the concept of welfarism has been the most common motivation for animal movements (Webster, 2007). The concept asserts that the animal welfare is the primary responsibility of humans. It acknowledges the fact that animals have long been used by the society for purposes beneficial to the humans. Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept that also addresses the issue of animal treatment. The concept asserts that rights actions translates to a positive outcome and minimizes unfavorable results. Utilitarianism takes into account the interest of all parties involved. Proponents of the utilitarian logic argue that the pain endured by farm animals as they are being slaughtered much greater than the pleasure enjoyed by the consumers of the meat (Webster, 2007). Therefore, the moral repercussions of these practices are quite dangerous and thus they must be obliterated. Most philosophers reject this assertion citing that the human interests cannot be likened to animal interest. Moreover, they argue that the concept violates the law of the universe since it equates human life to animal life. Most ethicists agree that farm animals should be treated in a humane manner regardless of whether they have outlived their importance or not. The ethical treatment of these animals solely depends on one’s viewpoint. Ethicist suggests that evaluating the living condition of animals using emotional provides a valid starting point. More importantly, it is imperative to refer to the knowledge of animal behavior. In the US, calls for humane treatment of farm animal were ignited by the broadcasts of video on various poultry farms that reveal inhumane treatment. The revelation has sparked condemnation from animal rights activists. Scientific debates have raised different views on proper handling and housing of farm animal (Webster, 2007). Most factory farms are driven by profits motives and are less concerned about the welfare of the animals. The concentration of livestock production in an intensive unit in these farms has had serious consequence to the animal welfare. The large corporations view the animals as production units rather than living creatures and put emphasis on mass production ahead of the animal welfare. According to ethicists, animal or better yet non-human beings also have a right to fair treatment. Certain handling practices rife in most factory farms as a matter of principle are morally wrong. For instance, cramming up of animals in filthy and non-ventilated holding is cruel and demeaning (Webster, 2007). In most cases, this has led to the spread of animal infections and diseases and thus making them unfit for human consumption. However, most food corporates are only concerned with reaping profits at the expense of the well-being of the consumers. Treatment of farm animals in a cruel manner says a lot about the society. A growing number of ethicists have criticized the treatment of livestock in factory farms. The ethicists and the philosophers are contemplating on the need to change the society attitude on the treatment of animals. Each has a moral obligation to examine and evaluate the issues of animal welfare. Industrial farming has been present only for a couple of years compared to a couple of centuries of the history of human agriculture. The inhumane treatment experienced in these industries is a mere reflection of the society moral decay (Webster, 2007). The advent of new technologies also bears the blame since it has revolutionized animal production. Currently, enormous food corporations are technology intensive and have little regard for the safety of the animals. A section of ethicists and philosophers point to several religious beliefs concerned with the fair treatment of animals. For instance, Hindus do not eat meat as they believe that the cycle of violence may bring bad luck and consequently upset their salvation. Another instance is in the Islamic religion that provides guidelines for the treatment of animal as they are being slaughtered. The Christians interprets their religious scriptures in an environmental perspective that place emphasis on animal welfare (Webster, 2007). The Christian scriptures view animals as God’s creature; therefore, they too should be fairly treated. Similarities between Humans and Animals Ethicist and scientist agree that just as humans, animals too are subject to physical, emotional, and psychological pain. Animals have the capacity to respond to various stimuli; therefore, they are also vulnerable to stress just like humans. Evidently, animals that are properly handled and provided with proper housing tend to be more productive. Cows, for instance, get anxious when kept in noisy surroundings and thus cutting down their milk production (Webster, 2007). Therefore, the assumption that only human have the capacity to respond to external stimuli is fallacious to a large extent. Philosophers also believe that animal have emotions and can respond to emotional distress. All living creatures experience certain fundamental emotions such as joy, and fear. Several instances of animal emotions include depressed pigs and cows showing resentment. Therefore, the assumption that animals do lack emotional experience is nonsensical and gibberish. It is common sense that animals have the capacity to show emotional distress. For instance, a cow reacts by struggling to run away from something that causes it pain. In short, animals too experience emotions; therefore, they should be treated in the most humanely way possible (Webster, 2007). Just like humans, animals draw their strength from social groups; this is can be observed in animals that move in herds such as cows. If such animals are confined separately, they tend to be more aggressive since it violates their nature. In addition, animals kept in overcrowded confinements also become aggressive since this prevents them from establishing social cliques. Philosophers liken this to people trapped in a single holding such as prison cells. Eventually, they become aggressive and violent. Ethicist view factory farms where animals are kept in overcrowded holdings as a violation of the dignity of the animals. The aggression of the animals can affect the workers who may suffer physical and emotional injury. Animal Welfare and Animal Rights Perspective According the animal activists, factory farming violates the dignity of the animals. The right activists advocate for the return of the traditional livestock production since it has a fewer case of animal cruelty. Farm animals should be treated fairly in all the stages of their lives. However, the sad reality is that the law against cruelty does not protect billions of farm animals today. Since the late 1970s, there have been numerous debates on whether farm animals have the moral right to be protected from inhumane treatment (Buller, & Morris, 2003). Animal right activists believe that farm animals have a right to be treated fairly. The primary objective of animal welfare movements is to reduce in as much as possible the suffering of the animals in the hands of humans. Welfarism is anchored on the kind and humane treatment of animals. Some of the renowned animal welfare movements include the America Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The organization mission is to provide alternative means for handling farm animals in a way that reduces harm and suffering endured by the animals. Although, the organization is a major proponent of the animal anticruelty law, it does not advocate for vegetarianism. Animal welfare groups believe that humans have the duty to ensure the fair treatment of animals. The movement does not prevent the slaughtering of livestock but rather advocate the use humane slaughtering methods. The methods should eliminate the excessive suffering of the animals as they are slaughtered. Animal rights view is fundamentally distinct from animal welfare view. The view asserts that animals are subject to certain privileges enjoyed by the human. However, this does not mean that animal rights can be likened to human rights. Most animal right activists believe that animals have a right to humane treatment. A section of philosophers has rejected the view of animal rights arguing that animal hold no right since the concept is entrenched in the human moral nature (Buller, & Morris, 2003). Consequences of Improper Housing The management of animals raised for human consumption has a direct influence on human health. Intensive farming practices rife in factory farms perpetuate the outbreak and spread of diseases. Animals in these factory farms are kept in overcrowded areas and thus providing an ideal avenue for the spread of infections (Buller, & Morris, 2003). Such practices have raised health concerns from the consumers. The high number of animals confined in the intensive units increases the risk of transfer of infection from the animals to the factory workers. Some of the infections are commonly spread infections include the swine flu in pigs. Health concerns have been raised about the use of antibiotic to suppress diseases and infection in these confinements as well as in promoting the growth of the animals. When these animals are slaughtered for human consumption, the antibiotics lead to the spread of drug-resistant diseases in humans. In the US, the Center for Disease Control approximates that close to 3 million people contract drug-resistant infection because of the continued consumption factory meat. Approximately 24,000 people die every year in the US due to these diseases (Buller, & Morris, 2003). Conclusion The paper finds the ethicist and philosophical perspective on animal treatment as valid and substantiated. Philosophy best explains the human motivation and action towards a particular situation. More importantly, it emphasizes the need for human animal treatment by drawing inferences from renowned philosophers. In the US, there are no legal guidelines for the fair treatment of animals in a factory farm. However, the industry ethical guidelines have filled in the legal gaps. References Buller, H., & Morris, C. (2003). Farm Animal Welfare: A New Repertoire of Nature‐Society Relations or Modernism Re‐embedded?. Sociologia Ruralis, 43(3), 216-237. Webster, A. J. F. (2007). Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market. The veterinary journal, 161(3), 229-237. Read More