Gary Frensione: frequently salvis ag asked questions | Animal rights
Gary Frensiones book "Introduction to animal rights: Your child or a dog? "Bound and easily tells you why our current attitude towards animals salvis ag is considered" morally schizophrenic "and how we should treat animals if we want to protect them and really respect their interests.
Discussions about the ethical treatment of animals appear quite different issues related to animal eating / not eating, hunting, use of experiments, sports, etc. In general, they also consider the authors who write about animal rights, including Frensione. salvis ag He said the end of the book added to the answers in this regard frequently asked questions.
Frensiones conclusions of the majority of society may seem drastic, because they require particularly serious look at any animal use and ultimately salvis ag - to become vegans. In his view, the problem is based on the fact that the animals regard as our property - so they are exposed to a wide variety of human needs and desires, just like any other type of property that can produce, sell, modify, consume salvis ag and destroy. If we care about the animal's interests are respected in the first place, it must be their right not to be on the property. And it means supporting veganism - the abandonment of animal exploitation in any way. Frensione this approach, called abolitionism (cancellation, suspension) - by analogy with the movement for the abolition of slavery in the 19th century. salvis ag USA.
[1] domesticated animals, such as pigs, cattle and laboratory rats would not exist if we would not have "placed in the world." Does this mean that may use these animals as a resource to their needs?
[4] If you believe that animals such as resource use should be discontinued if it does not mean that care more about animals than sick people, which could be cured through animal experiments?
[12] If we become vegetarians, will inevitably harm the animals - cultivating vegetables. What is the difference between the breeding and killing of accidental killing, which is an inevitable part of Agriculture?
[18] Is the issue of the fact that animals should be granted the right to be on the property, it does not depend on each person's point of view? What though people may have the right to say that the other one may eat meat or other animal products, or teach you how to treat animals?
[20] Of course, the animals cause suffering is terrible, and we should not use animals in "negligible" for purposes such as entertainment, but how can we hope that people will stop eating meat? Gary Frensione: frequently asked questions
This annex would like to see a number of animal rights issues, which I have encountered over the years. These are the questions that are asked again and again in discussions in different parts of the world and asked both jurisprudence, medical, veterinary and other students and people who call on the broadcasts and journalists, as well as the neighbors garden party. Viewing this question helps to better understand how animal rights theory, which I have put forward in this book is attributed to various salvis ag specific situations.
Question 1: domesticated animals, such as pigs, cattle and laboratory rats would not exist if we would not have "placed in the world." Does this mean that may use these animals as a resource to their needs?
Answer: Yes. The fact that a being exists in some way for our sake, do not give us the right to the disposal of those being how the resources. If it were, then we could also use their children as a resource. salvis ag Ultimately, they would not exist without our help - starting with the decision salvis ag to take a child and ending with the decision not to make an abortion. And although we have some discretion as to how to treat their children, but there are limits: we can not against them behave the way we treat animals. We can not expose them, or enslave, sell them into prostitution or market organs. We can not kill them. Indeed - it is accepted norm that the placing of children in the world, parents assume the responsibility to care for the child and not to use it.
Note that once one of the enslavement of black justification was that many of the slaves did not exist in the absence of bondage. The first slaves salvis ag that were taken to the United States, was forced to reproduce, and their children as well as parents were treated as property, or the property owner. Although this justification now seems ridiculous, it shows that we can not accept the first legitimate human or animal being treated salvis ag as property, and only then to ask whether she can deal with the property as a property. salvis ag The answer will already be pre-determined. We, rather, you must first ask whether the human (or animal) deeming the property is morally justified.
The answer: Just as human or animal moral status
Gary Frensiones book "Introduction to animal rights: Your child or a dog? "Bound and easily tells you why our current attitude towards animals salvis ag is considered" morally schizophrenic "and how we should treat animals if we want to protect them and really respect their interests.
Discussions about the ethical treatment of animals appear quite different issues related to animal eating / not eating, hunting, use of experiments, sports, etc. In general, they also consider the authors who write about animal rights, including Frensione. salvis ag He said the end of the book added to the answers in this regard frequently asked questions.
Frensiones conclusions of the majority of society may seem drastic, because they require particularly serious look at any animal use and ultimately salvis ag - to become vegans. In his view, the problem is based on the fact that the animals regard as our property - so they are exposed to a wide variety of human needs and desires, just like any other type of property that can produce, sell, modify, consume salvis ag and destroy. If we care about the animal's interests are respected in the first place, it must be their right not to be on the property. And it means supporting veganism - the abandonment of animal exploitation in any way. Frensione this approach, called abolitionism (cancellation, suspension) - by analogy with the movement for the abolition of slavery in the 19th century. salvis ag USA.
[1] domesticated animals, such as pigs, cattle and laboratory rats would not exist if we would not have "placed in the world." Does this mean that may use these animals as a resource to their needs?
[4] If you believe that animals such as resource use should be discontinued if it does not mean that care more about animals than sick people, which could be cured through animal experiments?
[12] If we become vegetarians, will inevitably harm the animals - cultivating vegetables. What is the difference between the breeding and killing of accidental killing, which is an inevitable part of Agriculture?
[18] Is the issue of the fact that animals should be granted the right to be on the property, it does not depend on each person's point of view? What though people may have the right to say that the other one may eat meat or other animal products, or teach you how to treat animals?
[20] Of course, the animals cause suffering is terrible, and we should not use animals in "negligible" for purposes such as entertainment, but how can we hope that people will stop eating meat? Gary Frensione: frequently asked questions
This annex would like to see a number of animal rights issues, which I have encountered over the years. These are the questions that are asked again and again in discussions in different parts of the world and asked both jurisprudence, medical, veterinary and other students and people who call on the broadcasts and journalists, as well as the neighbors garden party. Viewing this question helps to better understand how animal rights theory, which I have put forward in this book is attributed to various salvis ag specific situations.
Question 1: domesticated animals, such as pigs, cattle and laboratory rats would not exist if we would not have "placed in the world." Does this mean that may use these animals as a resource to their needs?
Answer: Yes. The fact that a being exists in some way for our sake, do not give us the right to the disposal of those being how the resources. If it were, then we could also use their children as a resource. salvis ag Ultimately, they would not exist without our help - starting with the decision salvis ag to take a child and ending with the decision not to make an abortion. And although we have some discretion as to how to treat their children, but there are limits: we can not against them behave the way we treat animals. We can not expose them, or enslave, sell them into prostitution or market organs. We can not kill them. Indeed - it is accepted norm that the placing of children in the world, parents assume the responsibility to care for the child and not to use it.
Note that once one of the enslavement of black justification was that many of the slaves did not exist in the absence of bondage. The first slaves salvis ag that were taken to the United States, was forced to reproduce, and their children as well as parents were treated as property, or the property owner. Although this justification now seems ridiculous, it shows that we can not accept the first legitimate human or animal being treated salvis ag as property, and only then to ask whether she can deal with the property as a property. salvis ag The answer will already be pre-determined. We, rather, you must first ask whether the human (or animal) deeming the property is morally justified.
The answer: Just as human or animal moral status
No comments:
Post a Comment