Write the introductory to an essay in fulfillment of WA#4, the single source essay. You'll find the assignment on pp. 191 - 92 of WFS. (Note that I'm asking you to write at least 750 words, not the 500 - 600 specified in WFS.)
You have already written such an introduction on Singleton's essay. Thus, this time, please choose one of the other essays we discussed in class.
The paragraph should follow the following structure:
1. "Hook" your reader
2. Provide a bridge from the hook to the main argument of the essay.
2. Summarize the main argument. Don't forget to work in Wise's full
name and the title of the essay. A typical template for that first
sentence might be as follows. In [title of the essay], [author's full name] [verb from the list in TSIS] that [the author's main argument/ thesis].
3. Summarize briefly the supporting arguments, each in their turn. Exclude
examples and details for now. Just summarize the main supporting
arguments. Use transitions to indicate the flow of the argument and the
fact that Singleton and not you is arguing. Some of you spent far too much time here when you wrote the Singleton introduction. Keep it brief.
Here, you'll need to understand the underlying organizational principle
of the essay. Writers don't always make them obvious. Use your
understanding of that organizational principle to structure your
summary.
4. State the underlying principle present in the essay -- the
idea that makes the argument go. You can think of it as your or Wise's thesis, but it is often unstated. Think of it as the idea
that you will either defend or refute in subsequent paragraphs in the
body of an essay that follows this introductory summary.
5. Finally, state your point of view as a response to Singleton's point
of view. You will either be defending, refuting, or finding some middle
ground.
Curtis Duren
ReplyDeleteENG 105
Prof. Burns
4 October 2016
And justice for all, including animals! That is the argument Steven M. Wise makes in “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” as he argues that animals are really no different than humans. Steven M. Wise, a professor at Harvard Law School and Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, is a very strong supporter of legal rights for animals. He believes that animals have many similar qualities as humans. Animals possess different levels of intelligence and many are very intelligent. Studies have shown that some animals have been able to be taught many things that humans do every day and Wise believes there should be protection for animals so they are not just killed for no reason. Animals are like babies because they cannot speak for themselves and the humans who care for them will end up being the speaker for them. Therefore, any animal who is owned legally should have the right to have the human caring for them to advocate for them. Wise refers to chimpanzees and bonobos as being quite intelligent and that they are most closely related biologically to humans because their actions can be very human-like. He argues that animals have emotions and they should not be subject to abuse and suffer pain. His support is strongest for legal rights for animals and to stop maltreatment even killing of animals that present no danger or harm to humans. Wise does recognize that animals aren’t humans but he fights the cause to decrease pain and ill treatment of animals and that laws should be in place to protect animals just as humans have laws to protect us. As Wise advocates for the rights of animals I agree that there should be laws in place to protect the animals that present no danger to people. Though I am not sure to the extent of how intelligent animals really are, I know that senseless killing or torture of animals is wrong. Therefore, I support the argument that animals deserve legal rights.
There are people of all ages who, when faced with the possibility of not getting what they want, decide to take the path of least resistance, regardless of the moral implications. Some children lie about whether they were tagged out in kickball, some teenagers cheat on their exams, and some business men and women embezzle money from the companies where they are employed. One could argue that torture is of the same class, an immoral act that people attempt to justify because it is the easiest way to achieve their goals. Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke hold a different opinion of the moral implications of torture. In “Torture: When the unthinkable is permissible”, Bagaric and Clarke argue that torture is permissible when evidence suggests it is the only way to save innocent lives. Bagaric and Clarke’s argument rests on three claims. The first claim is that people have a duty to do whatever it takes to save innocent lives. The second claim is that the pain of those who are attacked and their families will be greater than the pain inflicted on the tortured person. The third claim is that allowing innocent people to die to preserve the rights of wrongdoers will dehumanize society more than torturing the wrongdoer. It is important to note that none of these claims hold any weight if torture doesn’t truly obtain information that can be used to save lives. A fact that Bagaric and Clarke briefly mention, but ultimately gloss over. My refutation of Bagaric and Clarke’s essay will prove that torture is not necessarily the moral or even the most effective choice when trying to save innocent lives from terrorist attacks. That task will be accomplished by examining whether torture truly obtains information that can save lives, as well as, looking at whether the wrongdoer truly suffers less pain than those caught in an attack and preserving the rights of the wrongdoer could dehumanize society.
ReplyDeleteImagine a world where animals could speak. There would be court rooms with birds flying around, rabbits hopping freely, and a zoo of other animals waiting to defend themselves against unfair treatment. There would be pigs representing their fellow swine who are packed too tightly to turn around in factories all over the country. There would be lab monkeys eagerly waiting for their chance to argue against the unfair and inhumane treatment that they and their brothers are receiving in lab studies. There would be countless pets and circus animals there in support of equal rights not just for humans, but for animals as well. In a perfect world, these animals would not be in the way of human harm but because of the cruel testing and mistreatment of animals in today’s society, this has become an increasing problem; animal rights. If these animals could defend themselves and make a change for themselves, I am sure they would but they cannot. This brings to light the question of whether animals should be protected under new animal rights laws. In Stephen M. Wise’s essay, Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights, he argues that the laws governing animals are outdated and that animals were labeled ‘things’ in the pre-scientific age before we knew a lot about them. Fast forward to the 21st century and our knowledge of animals has grown greatly. Wise argues that now that we know that animals have emotion and feeling that they should be protected just like a mute person who may not be able to defend themselves would be. Wise thinks that because animals act autonomously, in their own interest or to better themselves, that they should be treated justly. Wise mentions that “every human is a person in the eyes of the law”, but it always hasn't been like that. For many years, humans owned other humans and they were considered things and all things non-human were also things with no rights. Today, we have abolished slavery but each year billions of animals are harmed or killed in factories, biomedical studies, circuses, rodeos and by hunters. These animals biggest crimes are that they are unable to speak to defend themselves, even though there have been many tests where animals have outsmarted humans in language comprehensive assessments like when a bonobo named Kanzi surpassed a two year old child by completing several commands, commands that the child did not understand in the slightest. So why does the law protect the child from the slightest bit of harm but not the bonobo? The bonobo clearly showed higher competence and autonomy in the tests than the child did. Why should we not do testing on 2 year old children? Would the results not be more accurate? If we, as a society, can justify the harm and mistreatment of billions of animals, we will always be able to justify harming one another. While the mass farming of animals has become a necessary institution in today’s society, some of the processes are inhumane and cruel strictly to reduce costs and maximize profits. The laws that have been put in place to protect animals like the 1966 Animal Welfare Act, are completely outdated and ineffective. The Animal Welfare Act simply sets standards for how animals are captured and maintained while in research, exhibition, or transport and it doesn't protect them against harmful testing and experimenting.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete... Many groups like PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, are emerging to fight for our beloved animals that simply cannot protect or defend themselves against our inhumane and unjust society. Many researchers, scientists and animal rights activists have proven that animals like apes possess most, if not all, of the emotions that we do, the only difference being that they were not born with the ability to express them to us in a way that is widely understood. Arguing that animals do not have or express emotion is a testament to the narrow-mindedness and callous nature that lies deep within the human race. It is the 21st century and we have the knowledge and technology to make the necessary changes to protect the other inhabitants of our beloved Earth, it is about time we act. Mankind will never be able to protect and love one another if we cannot even love and protect the harmless animals that have lived on this planet for just as long, if not longer than us.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFreedom, power, safety, and torture are all things we associate with ourselves in the human world. What we forget about is the rest of the animal kingdom. Our ancestors are unprotected by the laws that us humans see as basic rights. Steven M. Wise wonders what gives us the privilege to these rights and why the animals aren’t protected by the same ones in his essay, “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights.” Furthermore his arguments all surround the autonomy, or the independence of the animals and their ability to act rationally. He then gives examples of such autonomy with primates, which are our closest relatives. His statement, “21st century law should be based on 21st century knowledge,” is what keeps this ball rolling. I agree with his ideas but there does need to be clearer solution(s) to this problem and knowing the autonomy is only one of the many things we need in order to narrow down the list.
ReplyDeleteStephen Gagne
ReplyDeleteEnglish 105
Mr. Burns
Are animals so inferior to humans that only humans deserve to have legal rights? Animals are not represented in court by lawyers and are not protected by the government until after something heinous has happened to them. Steven Wise in “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” believes that animals such as primates should be given legal rights to defend themselves against cruelty. Billions of animals are legally killed or harmed for research, food, and entertainment. The factor of autonomy is what legal thinkers tend to think is the most important criteria for rights. However, autonomy can be difficult to define. Animals have been shown to be able to understand language, have emotions, use insight to solve problems, and act intentionally which correspond to some definitions of autonomy. We should use the most current information as the basis of the most current laws. We should not be the only living creatures allowed legal rights. Other animals being shown to exhibit behavior similar to humans has convinced me that specific animals, such as primates, deserve more rights depending on how they display having volition.
There is this classic hypothetical scenario in psychology: You are standing to the side of some train tracks. In front of you lies two different tracks. On top of one track lies five people tied up, and unable to move. On the other track lies one person in the same situation. If you do nothing, the train will continue straight killing the five people. However, if you pull the lever next to you, the train will go right, only killing the one person. What do you do? Entitled the “Trolley Problem,” this ethical dilemma invented by Philippa Foot contains a classical questioning of right and wrong. This same questioning of ethics and moral relativity is discussed in the essay “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Permissible,” written by Bagaric and Clarke, in which they examine moral implications of torture. Arguing that torture is in fact an acceptable action when proper evidence suggests it is the only way to save an innocent, or many innocent lives. Supporting their view with three main claims, Bagaric and Clarke argue that we have a duty to protect innocent lives, that a greater effect would occur on the families of the innocent party should they be attacked, and that it would be more immoral to allow innocent victims to be harmed than to torture the suspected party. However strong their evidence may be, Bagaric and Clarke ignore the implications of moral relativity. We as Americans believe that we are correct and just in all our actions, while the torture victim of our government may believe that he or she is completely just in their actions. This is a hug factor to consider and yet it is neither confirmed or refuted in “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Permissible.’
ReplyDeletePicture this; James Bond, tied up in a dusty, dark room. People in unassuming clothes and masks surround him, asking him question after question. Bond doesn’t say a word, and every time he doesn’t respond, the unassuming men do something horrible to him, like beat him, electrocute him, or stab him. As “Hollywood” as this image seems, torture occurs far more often than people today could ever imagine. Amnesty International documented the use of torture in over 81 countries in 2007, a number that has only continued to grow. In “Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible,” Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue that torture should be legally permissible because of situations where the cost of one human life outweighs the consequences of the possible actions of said person/group. Bagaric and Clarke argue that torture is permissible when either the urgentness of the situation or the evidence against the person suggests that torture would be the most efficient method to use to save innocent lives. They also present how torture is so widespread that legalization would most likely not create an overwhelming increase in the use of torture. To support their claims, they present the argument that the pain that would be experienced by the victims of the tortured person would be far greater than that of the tortured person, making it more morally permissible. They also discuss the major criticism of the use of torture, which is that it would dehumanize the torturers and tortured, and present several arguments as to why that would not occur because of the overall benefit that the torture would have on the whole of society. The underlying principle of Bagaric and Clarke’s essay is that when torture is concerned, the benefits greatly outweigh the possible damages that torture could cause, and that they deserve a fair analysis on the basis of that assumption. I personally agree with Bagaric and Clarke’s argument in “Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible,” where they argue that torture should be morally permissible on the basis that it would help save more people than it would cause harm to individuals, but that the use of torture would have to be regulated to prevent it from getting out of hand in more everyday situations.
ReplyDeleteCadence Semple
ReplyDeleteENG 105
Burns
October 4, 2016
PA #12
It’s time the public has opened its eyes to the cruelty and negligence. In “Why Animal Deserve Legal Rights”, Steven M. Wise explains the reasoning as to why there should be equal legal rights for animals as we humans have. Wise brings up the importance of autonomy multiple times throughout his essay, though it can be hard to define. Many assume that animals lack this quality among with the ability to have emotion and, therefore, were created and placed here for human use. On the contrary, some species, such as apes, have proven to have exceptional intellect and multiple studies have shown animals do retain the ability to feel pain, have emotion, and act independently and intentionally. However, many people ignore this and continue to have animals stripped of their rights. Nevertheless, the millions of animals who are abused and mistreated for research, entertainment, or food don’t have the privilege of hiring an attorney to argue their case to the court. The fact is, humans are not the only living creatures that deserve basic legal rights. As Wise said in his essay, “Twenty-first-century law should be based on twenty-first-century knowledge.” It has been made perfectly clear that animals are knowledgeable and capable of much more than we first thought. Consequently, it is evident that the next step to make amends is to end our inhumane tactics.
What makes animals lesser in value than us to torture them? Is it because they cannot talk or cannot express their emotions? In Steven Wise's "Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights", Wise argues that nonhuman animals are invisible to civil rights. Animals are killed and tortured for no apparent reason. They are tested on by chemicals to see if the object they are testing are okay for humans to use. What gives us that right over them to be tortured to help us? We know what chemicals and substances are harmful to us, so why do we continue to test them on the animals? Many people believe that animals were put on this Earth for human use, that they are useless. In fact, animals are very intelligent and the human may would die out without them. They help nature grow, they provide us with milk, fertilization, growth of crops, etc. No matter the case, animals should not be tortured.
ReplyDeleteTorture, such a vulgar word, but seen by a large portion of our population as a necessary consequence of war. It is crazy to think about war in the sense that everyone is fighting for what they believe in, and so whatever side you are on it’s going to be the veracious and ethical one. The use of torture is never considered to be that terrible for the people who enact it, only when is it used on them or their party does it then becomes the tragedy that it is. Such a useful tool, and a deadly weapon, torture is always going to be one of the best and most successful methods of intelligence gathering. As seen in “Torture: When the unthinkable is permissible”, written by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, torture is seen as necessary when evidence confirms that it is the only possible way to save innocent lives. Through disputes over moral antiquities, Bagaric and Clarke establish these claims by asserting that it is every human’s innate responsibility to save innocent lives. They further digress and avow that the pain that will be inflicted on the prisoner will be much less than that of pain that the families of the innocent people that lost their lives in the terrorist attack would feel. They conclude by proposing a counterargument and diffusing it, and this establishes that through these crude methods of intelligence gathering it would not totally dehumanize both the torturer and the prisoner. The overall understanding that is expressed by the authors is that the good that will be generated through the use of torture will far outweigh that of the bad. As I stated earlier, until you or someone you know becomes a victim of torture the reality of it is never really going to hit home. This allows for both parties to make the claims of a 5th grader by saying “they’re doing it so why shouldn’t we”. Although I am indifferent in the idea of using torture for intelligence gathering, it is amazing to investigate and interpret the complexities that foster the moral implications imposed on society by torture.
ReplyDelete“The question is not, “Can they reason?” nor, “Can they talk?” but “Can they suffer?”
ReplyDelete- Jeremy Bentham, The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1)
If humans do not have to suffer without consequences, why should animals? Harm to animals is unjust without probable cause. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights”, Steven M. Wise advocates that animals should have equal rights to humans. The law ignores all that is nonhuman, therefore animals do not have rights. Animals are unable to advocate for themselves; so humans must be their voice in order for beneficial change to occur. Unfortunately for animals, many people are unable to rationalize. Also some believe everything on earth is here for a reason, therefore, our use of animals is justified. Modern theories have argued against this just reasoning by supporting their beliefs with evidence. Will the proof of animal intelligence save them? The underlying principle present in Wise’s essay is that there is no reason for us to be treating anything without care with the lack of knowledge we have. I agree with Wise’s argument that animals should have rights, but I believe not to the extend of human rights.
(1) Tag, By. “Quotes About Animal Rights (212 Quotes).” Quotes About Animal Rights (212 Quotes). N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.
Humans are seen to be at the top of the hierarchy when it comes to life on Earth. We are seen as the superior form of life. Animals are viewed as savage and significantly lesser than humans. In many places all over the world, animals are violently mistreated for hunting, mass-consumption, and lab testing. Billions of animals are brutally killed each year solely for eating and testing purposes. Steven M. Wise argues in, “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” that humans know what the next step to help fix this problem is, and that would be ideally to eliminate or help decrease the mass-killings of animals. Farm animals such as cows, chickens, and pigs are all given hormones to help them grow faster, and are then killed for production. Therefore, these animals are not given a choice about what happens to them, potentially because there is no official way for humans to communicate with animals. Many animals such as bunnies, mice, and rats are also killed for lab-testing. Cosmetic products such as make up, shampoo, soaps, and perfumes are all testing on animals before they are on the shelf for human use. Regarding use absurd amount of products tested on animals, it is also strange that products for human be tested on animals since there are many physical and biological differences. There are many situations in which humans mistreat animals, and many reasons that we should stop. The arguments that Steven M. Wise promotes are issues that our society must put to an end, or decrease at the very least. Animals are violently abused and killed by humans for a variety of reasons, and it needs to stop.
ReplyDelete