The Relationship Between Humans and Animals - Coursework Example

In the relationship between humans and animals, who stands to gain? Humans and animals have lived side by side since time in memorial. However, the benefits that humans gain, for instance, from domesticated animals or wildlife are significant. Over the years, humans have domesticated animals for food, wealth and companionship. In addition, humans also domesticate animals to ease their work, for example, in farms and transportation purposes. Humans further use animals for their amusement. This is evident on how animals are kept in captivity in the zoos or game parks for the amusement of their masters. In this regard, it is clear that the human-animal relationship is similar to that of a master-servant relationship; however, it is unclear whether animals benefit from their relationship with humans (Korsgaard, 2009). Around the world, domesticated animals satisfy the needs of humans, but they are not rewarded for their services. Cases of animal cruelty are rampant around the world, and this amounts to exploitation of animals by humans. In this relationship, animals are not offered equal status to humans and their work is to serve their masters. This has led to a situation where when the domesticated animals become unproductive, they are disposed of by their masters. Similarly, the income that humans generate from wildlife is significant; however, owners of game parks or zoos have failed from time to time take care of the needs of the animals. As such, the relationship between humans and animals seems to favor only one side while the other is left to suffer (Korsgaard, 2009). In this paper, I will present the position that the human-animal relationship is influenced by the desire of exploitation where animals are the victims. Exploitation of animals in their relationship with humans Matsuoka and Sorenson (2013) contend that animals exist to serve human needs. Such needs include, for example, food, wealth maximization and companionship. As such, the human-animal relationship is influenced by the superiority of humans over animals. While animals are also social, Matsuoka and Sorenson (2013) view animals as not capable of thinking. This leaves humans in an advantageous position in terms of exploiting animals. Because animals cannot think for themselves, it is an opportunity for humans to take advantage of the situation. This has resulted in a situation where mankind does not exercise discretion in their relationship with animals. They tend to make arbitrary decisions, and in most cases, such decisions serve to benefit the humans while ignoring the needs of animals (Pacelle, 2015). Around the world, animals are used as a source of food without their permission. In their relationship with humans, they are treated like slaves and denied their rights. On the other hand, while humans emphasize the bill of rights, animals are ignored and their rights infringed because they lack awareness regarding equal rights. In this regard, those who exploit animals for their needs are informed by the fact that animals are only social being, but incapable of critical thinking or views. In a relationship where humans domesticate animals, it is evident that humans have more privileges than animals. For example, the conditions in which animals are kept are deplorable while humans live in better conditions. Humans also have access to better health care services while this is not the case for animals. In numerous occasions, when there is an outbreak of a disease, it is the humans who prioritize their health needs at the expense of animals (Corso et al., 2003). On the other hand, animals are neglected in the case of a disease outbreak, and in most cases, left to die. In other instances, animals with a disease are quarantined instead of providing appropriate medical attention similar to humans. The reason for such neglect is because, the humans exploiting animals consider themselves superior, and their needs should be prioritized (Corso et al., 2003). Those who exploit animals also see them as an opportunity to maximize wealth. There are many products that can be derived from both domesticated and wild animals. Some of the products that are derived from animals include, for example, skins and hide, milk, beef among other essential products for human use. As such, humans consider their relationship with animals as an opportunity to improve both social and economic status. While mankind derives various products from animals, the manner in which they are treated is similar to the sweatshops in the Far East. For instance, humans from time to time fail to appreciate the benefits they are getting from their domesticated animals (Haynes, 2008). On another note, the proponents of an exploitative relationship assume that animals do not deserve the care accorded to humans because they lack feelings. Humans tend to ignore that animals are also emotional beings. As a result of ignoring their feelings, humans tend to mistreat animals and fail to give them proper care meant to improve their wellbeing. For example, since humans are guided by the need to maximize their resources; they view animals as commodities to be sold. Consequently, humans do not mind how animals feel, for example, being moved from one destination to another. The care that humans accord themselves when moving from one destination to another is not similar to that given to animals. In most instances, they are often moved from one destination to another in congested cages where they suffocate. This maltreatment is in total disregard of the fact that these animals bring substantial benefits to humans (Haynes, 2008). The exploitation of animals is also evident in the manner in which mankind use animals for their amusement. For instance, zoos have been constructed around the world where wild animals are locked in cages for the amusement of humans who visit such zoos at a cost. Conversely, rather than the owners of such zoos showing appreciation by rewarding their caged animals, they are neglected, and in the long run, they end up dying as a result of the poor conditions in which they are tamed. The income that is generated from wildlife is significant; however, none of that income is channeled to improve the wellbeing of wildlife as they are left for nature to take its course (Zoo Granby, 2015). Similar to humans, animals are also social and in need of companionship; however, humans in most cases need the companionship of animals only when they are alone. For example, most human beings tend to keep pets as their companions because either their partners are deceased, or they are living alone. However, while humans keep pets for companionship, the manner in which they are treated is not similar to the relationship that exists between humans themselves. For instance, the pets do not have similar privileges to their human companions. Those in such an exploitative relationship admit that they only need the pets to pass time (Korsgaard, 2009). Contrary view regarding the exploitation of animals in their relationship with humans According to Hadley, (2015), the relationship between humans and animals is not exploitative because, it is nature that places humans above other living organisms on planet earth. As such, the human-animal relationship cannot exist on equal terms. In addition, human beings are unique compared to other living organisms in the sense that they are capable of critical or deductive thinking. In this sense, human beings are right to take control over their relationship with animals. If animals were given equal status to humans, then, there would be anarchy since animals lack a sense of judgment. Consequently, in a human-animal relationship, human beings should take charge of animals. On the other end of the spectrum, Aaltola (2011) notes that humans are not exploiting animals in their relationship because their existence is dependent on mankind. Animals are dependent on mankind for all their needs and cannot survive entirely on their own. Further, the relationship is reciprocal because, humans provide food and shelter for the animals. In turn, they also provide humans with food, wealth and companionship. The view that animals are exploited by humans is unwarranted because, most animals are not capable of social interaction and thus can only co- exist with humans in a controlled environment. This is why most of the domesticated animals are controlled by their owners to ensure they do not go astray. Further, their ability not to think brings challenges in terms of how they can handle their own social life. For instance, if animals are left to take care of themselves, only few will survive. This is because; animals depending on nature and only the fittest tend to survive (Aaltola, 2011). The relationship humans have with animals is also not exploitative because domestication has saved many animals from extinction. If most herbivorous where left to survive alone in the jungle, they would be extinct today. This is because; animals at the top of the food chain such as the carnivorous feed on those in the lower food chain. In the jungle, nature is left to take its course; however, humans play an important role in ensuring the safety of both domesticated and undomesticated animals. Similarly, it is not possible for animals to be accorded equal rights as humans. For example, since animals are not capable of thinking and only operate on instinct, they cannot live in the same house nor do the same things as humans. This is the reason there is a rift in the human-animal relationship because they cannot operate at same levels (Hadley, 2015). On the other hand, the creation theory also places humans above animals. While humans were created with more faculties, animals, on the other hand, have lesser faculties. This has contributed to humans having a greater influence on animals who are capable of social life, but limited in their thinking capacity. The creation theory also provides a list of animals that human beings can domesticate. This may have influenced human beings decision to have greater control in their relationship with animals. On another note, while humans use animals as a source of food, and as provided in the creation theory, they also appreciate living side by side with animals. This is evident on how humans keep animals as pets or setting aside game parks and reserves where animals are left to control their environment (Aaltola, 2011). Humans have also improved healthcare for animals as evident in the establishment of the veterinary sector that serves the health needs of animals. In addition, humans are also improving their relationship with animals in terms of recognizing their rights. Today, there is increased awareness among humans regarding the need to stop animal cruelty. This has led to crusade geared at ensuring that humans respect animal rights (Aaltola, 2011). Hadley (2015) further concur that humans are not exploiting animals because, that is how nature is designed. While both cannot survive without each other, humans have an upper hand in the relationship due to their unique abilities compared to that of animals. As such, it is impossible for the human-animal relationship to be on equal terms due to the dissimilarities evident between human beings and animals. The planet earth was created in such a way that other living organism, and including vegetation exists to support human life. As such, humans were given unique abilities to ensure they have exercise control over other living organisms on planet earth (Aaltola, 2015). Alternative perspective While there is opposition regarding the exploitative nature of the human-animal relationship, it is true that human beings have an upper hand in their relationship with animals. As a result, they use their dominant position to exploit animals. The exploitation is more evident in on domesticated animals where they are often maltreated despite the benefits they bring to mankind (Boat, 2002). Animals are a source of food, wealth and companionship for mankind, but they do not receive any reward for the services rendered. They are often disposed of when the owners feel their usefulness is over. Further, since animals lack the same faculties as humans, their needs are ignored because they cannot communicate or interact verbally with humans. This leaves them exposed to an exploitative relationship because they cannot speak for themselves in terms of bargaining for equal rights with the humans (Boat, 1995). In addition, mankind also ignores that animals are emotional beings and also feel aggrieved. In many instances, animals are separated from their groups through human activities such as disposing domesticated animals or encroaching on wildlife reserves where they interfere with animal’s social life. To create space for more human settlements, these animals are often caged in different orphanages where they are separated from their family members (Becker & French, 2004). Animals are also exposed to intolerance in their relationship with humans. Animal cruelty can manifest in the form of physical torture or keeping animals in deplorable conditions. The exploitation of animals is also evident in the emergence of animal rights activists. They acknowledge the cruelty inflicted on animals because they are helpless in a relationship where humans are in control and regard animals as inferior beings. Despite animals staying side by side with humans, their relationship is not mutual, and humans domesticate animals because of the benefits they can derive (Francione, 2003). Conclusion It is conclusive that human-animal relationship is influenced by the desire of exploitation where animals tend to be the victims. Humans are only in a relationship with animals because of the gains they can derive. When these animals become unproductive, they are disposed, and new ones are acquired. However, while the proponents of the exploitative view assert that animals exist to serve human needs, contrasting opinions note that the relationship should benefit both sides. On the contrary, humans are endowed with faculties that are unique compared to animals, and this places them in a position to exploit their inferior partners. References Aaltola, E. (2011).The philosophy behind the movement: animal studies versus animal rights. Society & Animals, 19(4), 393-406. Becker, F., & French, L. (2004). Making the links: Child abuse, animal cruelty and domestic violence. Child Abuse Review, 13, 399-414. Boat, B. W. (1995).The relationship between violence to children and violence to animals: An ignored link? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 229-235. Boat, B. W. (2002). Links among animal abuse, child abuse, and domestic violence. In I. A. Neighbors et al. (Eds.), Social work and the law: Proceedings of the National Organization of Forensic Social Work. New York: Haworth Press. Corso, P. S., Kramer, M. H., Blair, K. A., Addiss, D. G., Davis, J. P., & Haddix, A. C. (2003). Costs of illness in the 1993 waterborne cryptosporidium outbreak Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 9(4), 426-431. Francione, G. L. (2003). Animal rights theory and utilitarianism: relative anormative guidance. Between the Species, 3, 1-30. Hadley, J. (2015).Animal rights advocacy and legitimate public deliberation. Political Studies, 63(3), 696-712. Haynes, R. (2008). Animal welfare: Competing conceptions and their ethical implications. New York: Springer. Korsgaard, C.M. (2009).Exploiting Animals: A Philosophical Protest. Retrieved from http:// http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/CMK.Exploiting.Animals.pdf Pacelle, W. (2015).The Long Road to Animal Welfare. Foreign Affairs, 94(4), 65-77. Matsuoka, A., & Sorenson, J. (2013).Human consequences of animal exploitation: needs for redefining social welfare. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 40(4), 7-32. Zoo Granby. (2015). The commercial exploitation of wildlife. Enacees. Retrieved from http:// especesmenacees.ca/en/excessive-trade.php Read More