In his essay, 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, slavery allowed humans to own other humans as slaves, considering them and all animals as non-human things with no rights. While we have made huge strides in equality with the abolition of slavery, we have done little to protect the lives of our furry neighbors, big and small, around the globe. Each year billions of animals are harmed or killed by humans in factories, biomedical studies, circuses, rodeos and by hunters. These animals biggest crimes are the inability to speak and defend themselves. Even though there have been many tests where animals have outsmarted humans in language comprehensive assessments, we continue to mistreat and exploit animals for our own benefits. A notable study was when a bonobo named Kanzi was placed against a two year old child in a series of commands where they were instructed to complete several tasks using objects around them. The two year old child failed to complete the tests but Kanzi, the bonobo, passed with flying color. Tests like these make you ask, “Why does the law protect the child from the slightest bit of harm but not the bonobo?” The bonobo clearly shows higher competence and autonomy in the tests than the child did so why should we not perform testing on two year old children instead? Would the results not be more accurate? With all of our knowledge of animals, we continue to abuse them and kill them senselessly. Every year in the U.S. over 100,000 primates are imprisoned in libraries where they are abused, tortured, and killed in laboratory experiments.
Many people believe that animals are not as equal as us because they cannot do what we can do. However, animals are extremely intelligent and can be taught to do some things that we can do. There has been evidence showing that there are “nonhuman animals” with extraordinary minds. For example, there was a series of tests done on a 7 year old bonobo named Kanzi and a human 2 year old named Alia. During the tests, Kanzi and Alia had to make sense of what they were being asked and do what they were told. The bonobo showed tremendous intelligence with what he was asked to do, while Alia had no idea what was going on. Another example is that apes can learn sign language and speak to us about what they need/want. Even though they cannot physically speak out loud, they can speak to us through sign language proving to us that they are in fact highly intelligent and have a conscious.
While Bagaric and Clarke would like to see torture legal universally, I would advocate for torture to be legalized only under a very specific set of circumstances. I would only see torture as permissible if, and only if, multiple people would be affected by the actions of the person being tortured, and if there is sufficient evidence against the person being tortured to cite probable cause. If torture were legalized universally, and not only if there were multiple possible victims instead of just one, there is a risk that torture might be overused. As the common saying goes, “give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.” By this, I mean that if we allowed torture to be used in any situation, then it's likely that it would end up being used in numerous, less risky situations, like in single-victim murder cases, robberies, and drug crimes. While these crimes are still not permissible, they do not justify the physical or mental trauma to the criminal that would result from torture. In contrast, if we only legalized torture in the cases with multiple possible victims, like suspected bombing, then the cost of the damage to the life of innocent victims would outweigh the cost of the damages that could be done to the torture victim. If we strictly regulate torture in this manner, it is also less likely that people would get carried away with it's usage because of the possible repercussions they could face.
Bagaric and Clarke argue that the pain of the family who has lost someone to terrorism would far surpass the pain inflicted on the wrongdoer. However, there is no way to prove, without a doubt, that the pain of the wrongdoer would be less than the pain of the family. Bagaric and Clarke’s argument rests on the presupposition that it is possible to objectively compare one person’s pain to the pain of others. However, if one wants to compare the pain of the wrongdoer to the pain of the family (with the intent to determine whose pain is greater) it must first be possible to measure pain. At first this requirement may seem easy to fulfill. After all, nearly every person has, in their mind, a hierarchy depicting which injuries are most painful. But in order to make an objective comparison, a standard system must be created. One which is free of the subjectivity that would result from everyone creating their own system based on past experience and speculation. Even if someone attempted to sit down and quantitate pain, the system would have to be deemed accurate before it was accepted. An unlikely feat when one considers that the planet’s population is more than seven million people. Millions of people are bound to disagree over whether a stubbed toe should rank above a paper cut, and thousands may even claim that slamming their finger in a car door is worse than breaking a bone. Faced with so many discrepancies, one may argue that a vote should be taken. The results would be counted up and the majority will decide which situation is more painful. However, letting the majority decide would only work in situations where they are comparing two situations that are ranked consecutively. There are bound to be times in which some people think one situation is ranked seven or eight places too high. Other may agree that the situation is ranked too high but may only believe that three other situations rank higher. Does the majority still make the final decision? What if the three situations that should rank higher are not only different for each individual, but also non-consecutive? One can attempt to continue to uphold the decision of the majority, but the standard system will have become horribly twisted and deformed by opinions. No one will claim that it represents them as an individual, let alone an entire country or the world. The prerequisite for comparing pain cannot be met, and consequently one will never know if the wrongdoer feels less pain.
Cadence Semple ENG 105 Burns October 6, 2016 PA #13
Have you ever gone through any medical procedure that required anesthetics or some type of medication to “numb” the pain? Imagine if you had gone through that procedure without it and had to suffer all of the pain completely conscious. According to Bernard Rollin, professor of philosophy, animal sciences, and biomedical sciences at Colorado State University, during his interactions with scientists who conducted animal experimentation, he was often asked to prove that the animals being experimented on were conscious, and to provide evidence that the animals could feel pain. These animal experiments can range from exposing animals to radiation to injecting or force feeding harmful substances. Some experiments even require the animal to be killed in the end, usually after suffering from some kind of extreme injury. One experiment that is conducted frequently by companies such as Neutrogena, a household name skincare company, is a skin corrosion test. In this particular experiment, corrosive chemicals are applied onto the raw skin of rabbits’ shaved backs. These chemicals are left there for up to two weeks and often burn the skin, resulting in major damage to the tissue. The rabbits are given no type of pain relief throughout the entire experiment and are killed once the test is over.
In their efforts to establish the grounds on which the foundation of reasons for torture, both Bagaric and Clark establish that it is within every humans innate responsibility to help in the saving of innocent lives. Although to some extent this is true, there are many different problems with an accusation like this. Thinking back to cultural geography, there are certain social constraints that are naturally imposed upon a body making them to be who they really are. Now not all of these constraints are tangible and one of the larger more controversial one is that of race. In a book about race and space, a cultural geographer sets out to observe the implications of race on a rave in Guatemala. Within his studies, the geographer notices that during the nighttime at the rave, all of the different bodies are clumped together in one large conglomerate where you are not easily able to see racial divisions amongst the crowd. He observes that as the sun begins to come up at the rave and the people are now able to more physically see the different races around them that segregation nationally begins to form. Although it may not be as black and white as expected he explains how there was a visibly noticeable different in the areas the different races moved into. The overall message that was perceived through this story is that even though humans do not intentionally segregate, it is simply in our nature and genetics to surround ourselves with people who look the same as us. Information like this puts pressure on the claim that it is within every human’s innate responsibility to help the innocent because it begs the question “would people react the same way if the innocent person was not one from their own country or even race or gender”. Although everyone likes to believe that in a given crisis situation they would make the morally right decision and help the people in need of it most, the inherent predisposition of people to help that of their own kind is a concept that can not simply be brushed aside when contemplating the use of torture.
Animals such as bunnies, mice, and rats are also killed through lab-testing in order to perfect certain products. These cosmetic products such as make up, shampoo, soaps, and perfumes are all tested on animals before they are on the shelf for human use. These animals are inflicted with various amounts of pain including deprivation of food, being burned, force-fed, physical hurt, brutally tested. (http://animal-testing.procon.org/). With the scientific technology that we have in our modern-day society, we have the tools to be able to test products on things besides animals. If we use the advanced technology that we have created, we could save the lives of these innocent animals, and give them the lives that they deserve to live. “Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used.” (http://animal-testing.procon.org/). Since animals are tested on regularly, this creates the message that they do not deserve to be alive, perpetuating the idea that we are more valuable than animals, and our lives mean more. In order to give animals rights, we must test products and chemicals on cells that are not in a living creature, and use the technology that we have created as a society. By giving animals rights, this would make animal product testing illegal, saving the lives of many of these innocent creatures.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn his essay, 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, slavery allowed humans to own other humans as slaves, considering them and all animals as non-human things with no rights. While we have made huge strides in equality with the abolition of slavery, we have done little to protect the lives of our furry neighbors, big and small, around the globe. Each year billions of animals are harmed or killed by humans in factories, biomedical studies, circuses, rodeos and by hunters. These animals biggest crimes are the inability to speak and defend themselves. Even though there have been many tests where animals have outsmarted humans in language comprehensive assessments, we continue to mistreat and exploit animals for our own benefits. A notable study was when a bonobo named Kanzi was placed against a two year old child in a series of commands where they were instructed to complete several tasks using objects around them. The two year old child failed to complete the tests but Kanzi, the bonobo, passed with flying color. Tests like these make you ask, “Why does the law protect the child from the slightest bit of harm but not the bonobo?” The bonobo clearly shows higher competence and autonomy in the tests than the child did so why should we not perform testing on two year old children instead? Would the results not be more accurate? With all of our knowledge of animals, we continue to abuse them and kill them senselessly. Every year in the U.S. over 100,000 primates are imprisoned in libraries where they are abused, tortured, and killed in laboratory experiments.
ReplyDeleteMany people believe that animals are not as equal as us because they cannot do what we can do. However, animals are extremely intelligent and can be taught to do some things that we can do. There has been evidence showing that there are “nonhuman animals” with extraordinary minds. For example, there was a series of tests done on a 7 year old bonobo named Kanzi and a human 2 year old named Alia. During the tests, Kanzi and Alia had to make sense of what they were being asked and do what they were told. The bonobo showed tremendous intelligence with what he was asked to do, while Alia had no idea what was going on. Another example is that apes can learn sign language and speak to us about what they need/want. Even though they cannot physically speak out loud, they can speak to us through sign language proving to us that they are in fact highly intelligent and have a conscious.
ReplyDeleteWhile Bagaric and Clarke would like to see torture legal universally, I would advocate for torture to be legalized only under a very specific set of circumstances. I would only see torture as permissible if, and only if, multiple people would be affected by the actions of the person being tortured, and if there is sufficient evidence against the person being tortured to cite probable cause. If torture were legalized universally, and not only if there were multiple possible victims instead of just one, there is a risk that torture might be overused. As the common saying goes, “give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.” By this, I mean that if we allowed torture to be used in any situation, then it's likely that it would end up being used in numerous, less risky situations, like in single-victim murder cases, robberies, and drug crimes. While these crimes are still not permissible, they do not justify the physical or mental trauma to the criminal that would result from torture. In contrast, if we only legalized torture in the cases with multiple possible victims, like suspected bombing, then the cost of the damage to the life of innocent victims would outweigh the cost of the damages that could be done to the torture victim. If we strictly regulate torture in this manner, it is also less likely that people would get carried away with it's usage because of the possible repercussions they could face.
ReplyDeleteBagaric and Clarke argue that the pain of the family who has lost someone to terrorism would far surpass the pain inflicted on the wrongdoer. However, there is no way to prove, without a doubt, that the pain of the wrongdoer would be less than the pain of the family. Bagaric and Clarke’s argument rests on the presupposition that it is possible to objectively compare one person’s pain to the pain of others. However, if one wants to compare the pain of the wrongdoer to the pain of the family (with the intent to determine whose pain is greater) it must first be possible to measure pain. At first this requirement may seem easy to fulfill. After all, nearly every person has, in their mind, a hierarchy depicting which injuries are most painful. But in order to make an objective comparison, a standard system must be created. One which is free of the subjectivity that would result from everyone creating their own system based on past experience and speculation. Even if someone attempted to sit down and quantitate pain, the system would have to be deemed accurate before it was accepted. An unlikely feat when one considers that the planet’s population is more than seven million people. Millions of people are bound to disagree over whether a stubbed toe should rank above a paper cut, and thousands may even claim that slamming their finger in a car door is worse than breaking a bone. Faced with so many discrepancies, one may argue that a vote should be taken. The results would be counted up and the majority will decide which situation is more painful. However, letting the majority decide would only work in situations where they are comparing two situations that are ranked consecutively. There are bound to be times in which some people think one situation is ranked seven or eight places too high. Other may agree that the situation is ranked too high but may only believe that three other situations rank higher. Does the majority still make the final decision? What if the three situations that should rank higher are not only different for each individual, but also non-consecutive? One can attempt to continue to uphold the decision of the majority, but the standard system will have become horribly twisted and deformed by opinions. No one will claim that it represents them as an individual, let alone an entire country or the world. The prerequisite for comparing pain cannot be met, and consequently one will never know if the wrongdoer feels less pain.
ReplyDeleteCadence Semple
ReplyDeleteENG 105
Burns
October 6, 2016
PA #13
Have you ever gone through any medical procedure that required anesthetics or some type of medication to “numb” the pain? Imagine if you had gone through that procedure without it and had to suffer all of the pain completely conscious. According to Bernard Rollin, professor of philosophy, animal sciences, and biomedical sciences at Colorado State University, during his interactions with scientists who conducted animal experimentation, he was often asked to prove that the animals being experimented on were conscious, and to provide evidence that the animals could feel pain. These animal experiments can range from exposing animals to radiation to injecting or force feeding harmful substances. Some experiments even require the animal to be killed in the end, usually after suffering from some kind of extreme injury. One experiment that is conducted frequently by companies such as Neutrogena, a household name skincare company, is a skin corrosion test. In this particular experiment, corrosive chemicals are applied onto the raw skin of rabbits’ shaved backs. These chemicals are left there for up to two weeks and often burn the skin, resulting in major damage to the tissue. The rabbits are given no type of pain relief throughout the entire experiment and are killed once the test is over.
In their efforts to establish the grounds on which the foundation of reasons for torture, both Bagaric and Clark establish that it is within every humans innate responsibility to help in the saving of innocent lives. Although to some extent this is true, there are many different problems with an accusation like this. Thinking back to cultural geography, there are certain social constraints that are naturally imposed upon a body making them to be who they really are. Now not all of these constraints are tangible and one of the larger more controversial one is that of race. In a book about race and space, a cultural geographer sets out to observe the implications of race on a rave in Guatemala. Within his studies, the geographer notices that during the nighttime at the rave, all of the different bodies are clumped together in one large conglomerate where you are not easily able to see racial divisions amongst the crowd. He observes that as the sun begins to come up at the rave and the people are now able to more physically see the different races around them that segregation nationally begins to form. Although it may not be as black and white as expected he explains how there was a visibly noticeable different in the areas the different races moved into. The overall message that was perceived through this story is that even though humans do not intentionally segregate, it is simply in our nature and genetics to surround ourselves with people who look the same as us. Information like this puts pressure on the claim that it is within every human’s innate responsibility to help the innocent because it begs the question “would people react the same way if the innocent person was not one from their own country or even race or gender”. Although everyone likes to believe that in a given crisis situation they would make the morally right decision and help the people in need of it most, the inherent predisposition of people to help that of their own kind is a concept that can not simply be brushed aside when contemplating the use of torture.
ReplyDeleteAnimals such as bunnies, mice, and rats are also killed through lab-testing in order to perfect certain products. These cosmetic products such as make up, shampoo, soaps, and perfumes are all tested on animals before they are on the shelf for human use. These animals are inflicted with various amounts of pain including deprivation of food, being burned, force-fed, physical hurt, brutally tested. (http://animal-testing.procon.org/). With the scientific technology that we have in our modern-day society, we have the tools to be able to test products on things besides animals. If we use the advanced technology that we have created, we could save the lives of these innocent animals, and give them the lives that they deserve to live. “Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used.” (http://animal-testing.procon.org/). Since animals are tested on regularly, this creates the message that they do not deserve to be alive, perpetuating the idea that we are more valuable than animals, and our lives mean more. In order to give animals rights, we must test products and chemicals on cells that are not in a living creature, and use the technology that we have created as a society. By giving animals rights, this would make animal product testing illegal, saving the lives of many of these innocent creatures.
ReplyDeleteNice Article. Kindly visit us @ Motorola Service Center in Chennai
ReplyDeleteI like to read this blog... Its a nice blog..
ReplyDeleteThanks..
Mcx Tips Free Trial
Gold Trading Tips