Treatment Of Non-Human Animals

Treatment of Non-Human Animals
I will argue that Utilitarianism is a reasonable ethical theory to demonstrate we have a duty to
accord moral consideration to sentient beings equally, in this case non–human animals. I will
illustrate under Utilitarian criteria, that non–human animals are indeed sentient and that it is enough
to count for moral standing. I will defend my argument in examples of practices commonly used in
treating animals a resource, such as for food and in laboratory experiments. This will prove that any
action that fails to treat animals as a being with moral standing violates an animal's right, and
therefore is morally impermissible.
I will begin by showing why Utilitarian Theory justifies my claim in providing a strong argument
for non–human animals. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Now at this point, I should consider what beings are sentient. According to Peter Singer, it's all and
only vertebrate animals who are sentient. It is useless to think oysters or rocks or trees have a
sufficient amount of consciousness directed toward our utilitarian calculations. So, humans and most
non–human animals (who we have proved to have interests) are to be taken into account. Well, some
might question whose sentience matters. It is argued non–human animals' interests are not as intense
as our own. Because we are self conscious and have the ability to anticipate and remember our pain
with greater fidelity than animals, it is possible a human's pain has greater weight than an animal's.
But, on the other hand, our rationality allows us to distance ourselves from pain and give it purpose,
like a flu shot for example, for animals cannot do so. I will conclude this thought by saying in most
cases involving animals, human interests aren't at stake, so the right course of action is easy to
judge.
In this next section, I will demonstrate how a non–humans' sentience counts as having moral
consideration. First, let's look at the requirements for moral consideration. Beyond sentience, moral
consideration is argued to extend to rationality, intelligence or language. I will explain how those
views could be altered. Why is an animal's lack of human levels of rationality and intelligence allow
us to ignore their pain and suffering? If
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Ethical Laws To Non-Human Animals
"Over 56 billion farmed animals are killed every year by humans." according to the animal rights
organization, Animal Equality. This colossal amount of animals slaughtered for our own selfish
needs does not include sea creatures, which could only augment the number of deaths. Yet, the
majority of the world continues to ignore the speciesism and the destruction of the environment that
the meat and other industries promote. They may contend that the by applying our ethical laws to
non–human animals, we are thus depriving ourselves of the essential nutrients that the human body
needs. These vitamins and proteins that are arguably a necessity can be found in vegan food, such as
the 6,338mg of omega 3 found in three tablespoons of flax seeds and 18 grams of protein in one cup
of lentils. There is a large amount of research showing that vegans live healthier lives. However, that
is ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A few years ago, Professor F. W. Rogers Brambell discovered that there is a extremely sensitive soft
tissue debeaking would cut straight through. Cutting through this flesh will lead to acute pain.
Furthermore, if not done right, which is often, the procedure will cause blisters and burned nostrils.
The healing process often consists of weeks of weight loss due to the severe pain from the
procedure. While this method reduces the amount of cannibalism that is performed in these factory
farms by chickens, the farmers are not against cannibalism when it increases the profit they receive.
The previous method was used female chickens that are raised for their meat. This next one is an
economically efficient practice to dispose of the newborn male chickens that have zero monetary
value to the farmers, as reported by Singer. Almost immediately following the birth of theses
chickens, they are separated into two groups: male and female. The females are shipped off to
factory farms, and some males

Do Humans Have Moral Obligations To Non-Human Animals?
Do humans have moral obligations to mon–human animals?
Oxford English dictionary defines moral as "of or relating to human character or behavior
considered as good or bad, or to the distinction between right and wrong," and obligation as "an act
or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound." Accordingly, the term "moral
obligations" can be reasonably interpreted as duties that arise out of humans' consideration of right
and wrong. In other words, it is up to humans to judge and decide whether or not certain actions
toward non–human animals are right or wrong. In regard to the broad and commonly debated
question, "do humans have moral obligations to non–human animals," the answer is yes, but in a
restricted sense – that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As I have clarified earlier, neither the claim that non–human animals have no rights nor the claim
that our moral obligations to humans need to be equal to those to non–human animals is cogent
enough to conclude that we have no moral obligations to non–human animals. We surely do. A
relevant example would be the global species conservation efforts. Over the past fifty years, WWF,
one of the world's largest independent conservation organization, had invested over one billion
dollars in more than twelve thousand conservation initiatives and helped conserved a number of
species, including elephant, giant panda, polar bear, great apes, etc. Dr. Claude Martin, former
Director General of WWF International once said, "our objectives have never been clearer – slow
climate change, reduce toxics in the environment, protect our oceans and fresh waters, stop
deforestation, and save species." One of the major goals of WWF is to promote the biodiversity of
ecosystem and habitats that is vital for the health and livelihoods for all the living organisms on
earth. Meanwhile, Dr. Claude Martin's statement does not show that the motive behind conserving
endangered species arises solely out of humans' moral obligation to non–human animals, but our
obligations to these

The Factors Influencing Human Behaviour Outside Of Other...
Animals are one of the top factors influencing human behavior outside of other non–human animals.
The interactions that occur between people and non–human animals, particularly in the Appalachian
region, has led to profound changes both on the local community. The most significant interaction to
take place and has influenced the area drastically is domestication. Four types of domestication at
the forefront of Appalachian culture are livestock, blood–sports, pet keeping, and animal's
prevalence in oral folklore. The introduction of domestication previous to and after the Neolithic
Revolution has harbored new relationships between humans and animals that have altered the
mountain face, culture, and economy of the Appalachian region.
The most prevalent human–animal interaction to be observed and widely practiced in the
Appalachian Mountains is the keeping of domesticated animals. The region was widely used as
hunting and gathering land previous to colonial expansion. Animals were not domesticated by
Native Americans their animism, or the belief that all organisms and inanimate objects possess a
soul ("Constructing Animals"). However, it was not until the Neolithic Revolution reached the
Appalachians that sustainable agriculture became a standard way to obtain food. In doing so
domesticated animals, particularly livestock, became common in the mountains. Hogs cattle, and
chickens were kept on farms to allow for easier access to meat, dairy, and eggs. Consequently, when
people

Non Human Research Paper
Humans have been oppressing non–human animals for quiet sometime just because they can.
Humans see non–humans as less intelligent, insignificant, disposable, and the fact that humans are at
the top of the food chain. Humans haven't just oppressed non–humans, they have oppressed other
humans and treated them like non–humans today are treated. We are guilty of treating humans and
non–humans as slaves to better our own lively hood. I have come up with a few strategies to
overcome our power hunger and denial regarding non–humans. We treat dairy cows as slaves like
we did to humans. An example of this is that if they produce more milk than expected they are
expected the high of production every time (Willets, Class Notes 4/25–4/27). However, ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
First, is to as a society accept that we have a problem of wanting and needing power. In order to get
to this acceptance we need to bring the slaughterhouses and farms out of hiding and show what is
really going on behind the scenes. There should be a law implemented to make slaughterhouses and
farms have windows for the public to see what is going. I mean it shouldn't be like we can view
what's happening 24/7 because that is there lively hood and some people's homes. We don't want the
public to invade people's privacy or put the workers at risk of being in danger. There could be more
tours available for slaughterhouses. I don't see anyone wanting to go on a tour, but it should be
available to the public maybe on–line. Perhaps, a live feed of what is happening at the
slaughterhouse. These strategies are a bit more risky because they can have backlash on the
governments' invasion of privacy, works endangerment, and animal cruelty complaints left and
right. The public can be overwhelmed when something like slaughterhouses is put right in front of
our face. If we can accept the fact that slaughterhouses exist and we treat animals like dairy cows as
slaves. Then we can overcome this power hungry society we live in. To get rid of any problem it
must be accepted that there is a problem. Denial is a powerful thing we have in our society and that
is quite often over

Animal Abuse Is The Act Of Cruelty And Infliction Of Pain...
Corbin 1
Jonathan Corbin
Ms. Powell
English 1020
5 Nov, 2015
Animal Abuse Animal abuse is the act of cruelty and infliction of pain on non–human animals. Dogs
are the most common victims of the abuse. How do you feel about people abusing poor, innocent
animals? I strongly believe there should be a greater punishment for the crimes committed.The
controversy has grown greatly in the last few years with the increase of most abuse cases. Animal
rights activists are working hard to bring success into the movement. In addition to being viewed as
thugs, activists are also seen as crack heads. This identity wasn't just given to them though. Not long
ago, they splattered red paint on unsuspecting pedestrians wearing fur coats in New York City.
While working with the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) activists showed that at
least six billion chickens will die in slaughterhouses this year. In the recent past, it has been hard to
find legal protection for animals; however, some of the nation's top law schools are beginning to
offer majors in animal–rights law. This is a big step toward the future of defending animals in our
country 's federal court. One of the most important victories for the animal–rights movement
happened in the month of October in 2000. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)
agreed to settle a lawsuit that was trying to broaden the view on the Animal Welfare Act of 1966.
This act stopped the treatment of large animals in

Should We Extend Equal Consideration Of Interests To Non...
Equality has been a controversial and persistent issue in America's history. From slavery to
segregation, it might seem that now that we have laws outlawing these forms of discrimination, we
are free from all forms of prejudice. While this might seem true, we are actually not. We are too
quick to overlook an issue that affects a great number of us. And by us, I mean all animals. Many
humans tend to have a feeling of superiority over other species of animals. Reasons for this might be
because humans feel as other species are not as intelligent as them or because we cannot
communicate properly to know their interests. This is not justifiable. I will argue that the we should
extend equal consideration of interests to non–human animals because ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
They also argue that humans are just superior to other animals because of our intellectual abilities so
they should not have the same considerations of interests. It might be true that most humans are
smarter than other species but that does not make it right to make other animals purposely suffer for
our own enjoyment. Stating that all humans are smarter than any animal is false. For example,
Singer quoted ""A chimpanzee, dog, or pig, for instance, will have a higher degree of self–
awareness and a greater capacity for meaningful relations with others than a severely retarded infant
or someone in a state of advanced senility." Here, Singer provides evidence against the argument
stating that animals can be smarter than humans but that does not make it okay for an infant to be
treated to the same suffering and injustice of a non–human animal. This further proves that the real
reason for not extending moral consideration to non–human animals is not due to their intelligence
but because of humans believing that they are superior to other animals, which is

Non Human Primates
Experiments and research on non–human primates has helped advance the fields of biology and
medicine. The experiments and research done on primates often plays a major role in testing the
safety of new drugs, research on understand how the brain works, and research on how to prevent
infections disease in humans. Thanks to research done with animals, medical advances are
continuously made. In some way, all humans benefit from animal research. Non–human primates
are a group of mammals that consists of monkeys, apes, chimpanzees, lemurs and others. Monkeys
are then divided into two smaller groups known as Old World monkeys and New World monkeys.
New World monkeys are native of Africa and Asia. Old World monkeys originate from Central and
South ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Research groups do not allow abuse of animals in any form and they designate certain people to take
care of the animals. All humans benefit from animal research in a certain way. Thanks to animal
research, vaccines have been developed for polio, diphtheria, and measles. Chemotherapy
treatments and insulin treatments were tested and developed thanks to animal research. With animal
research, researchers were able to perform cardiac bypass surgery, perform organ transplants, and
place stints through the femoral artery instead of open heart surgery. Under proper conditions,
animal research can accomplish many things. Animal research can help humans understand diseases,
create vaccines, create antibiotics perform surgeries to extend life, treat cancer, create
pharmaceuticals that are safe to be consumed by humans and animals, and create ways to help
benefit humans and animals walk easier or comfortably. Thanks to animal research, human medicine
has advanced in extraordinary

Why Is Animal Testing Wrong
Human's have made innumerable advancements in the world we live in however in doing so, the
progression of ethical and moral decisions made upon animal testing and vivisection have failed to
strive simultaneously. In this paper I will affirm with the central claim that it is wrong to cause
unnecessary suffering ought to be extended to the practice of vivisection. Innocent animals should
not be put through these harsh environments of inflicted pain for the sake of a slight potential gain in
human living. I believe this because these animals cannot represent themselves and vocalize their
willful consent in the practice and will not be able to comprehend the pain and suffering caused
during testing periods. The most common objection proposed to this claim however, would be the
explained rationale behind why this form of testing occurs and the benefits it has shown in
enhancing human and non–human existence. Although these considerations arise, it is still found to
be unethical to cause unnecessary harm and suffering to any live animal in the name of science to
supposedly gain a successful medical treatment or household product. Animal welfare
representatives will continue to conclude that there is no valid justification for ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
A majority of humans will show immense respect towards scientists and researchers. Their
education and profound knowledge are praised in advancing our health care, households and human
life in general. These successful studies however, may have included some form of harmful animal
suffering to achieve the objectives of human growth and development. Some may argue that animal
testing is morally essential in our ever–growing society as it allows researchers to determine
progressive factors in not only the human species but the animal species as well (Rollin

Influencing The Lives Of Non Human Animals
Influencing the lives of non–human animals for centuries, animals have led to appreciable
advancement in society. The interactions that occur between people and non–human animals,
particularly in the Appalachian region, has led to profound changes both on the local community and
the nation. The most significant interaction to take place and has influenced the area drastically is
domestication. Four types of domestication at the forefront of Appalachian culture are livestock,
blood–sports, pet keeping, and animal's prevalence in oral folklore. The introduction of
domestication previous to and after the Neolithic Revolution has harbored new relationships
between humans and animals that have altered the mountain face, culture, and economy of the
Appalachian region.
The most prevalent human–animal interaction to be observed and widely practiced in the
Appalachian Mountains is the keeping of domesticated animals. The region was widely used as
hunting and gathering land previous to colonial expansion. Native Americans did not keep or
domesticate animals because of their animism beliefs, or the belief that all organisms and inanimate
objects possess a soul ("Constructing Animals"). However, it was not until the Neolithic Revolution
reached the Appalachians that sustainable agriculture became a standard way to obtain food. In
doing so domesticated animals, particularly livestock, became common in the mountains. Hogs
cattle, and chickens were kept on farms to allow for easier access

Peter Singer Animal Liberation Essay
This argument: that rational beings must be considered ends in themselves, was the lifeblood of the
movements of the 1970s that sought to bring oppressed groups under the umbrella of equal moral
consideration. These prolonged and often violent debates revolved around demands for equality
through which oppressed groups could attain their liberation. As such it is not surprising that the
movement for animal liberation stems from these concerns. In fact, they are explicitly allied with
them. Peter Singer's seminal text Animal liberation is deliberately called so to evoke memories of
the fortitude and determination of these earlier movements for human liberation. Singer emphasises
rationality and self–consciousness of some animals as evidence ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Fifteen minutes later, when Goliath got up and left, Figan without a moment's hesitation went over
and collected the banana. Quite obviously, he had sized up the whole situation: if he had climbed for
the fruit earlier, Goliath would almost certainly have snatched it away, If he had remained close to
the banana, he would probably have looked at it from time. Chimps are very quick to notice and
interpret the eye movements of their fellows, and Goliath would possibly, therefore, have seen the
fruit himself. And so Figan had not only refrained from instantly gratifying hiss desire but had also
gone away so that he could not 'give the game away' by looking at the banana.' the police dog here:
Often when one observes the behaviour of non–human animals and concludes that it is likely that
they are going through some thought process that is unlikely to be dissimilar to our own, it is called
anthropomorphising: falsely ascribing human characteristics to a non–human animal. The distinction
between human and person allows us to make the claim that both humans and some non–human
animals display particular characteristics that place them under the category of personhood. It
provides a sobering and humble approach to understanding our (human) place in relation to non–
humans. Animal liberationists conclude

Consequentialism: The Argument From Marginal Cases
Consequentialism is a class of ethical theories stating that the consequences of one's actions are the
superior judge as far as to what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The doctrine of Utilitarianism
falls under the umbrella of consequentialism and suggests that actions are right if they are deemed as
useful or are for the benefit of the majority. Alongside that, Utilitarians argue that everyone counts
and everyone counts equally. This imposes that each being, belonging to the moral community, is
owed a certain amount of respect and acknowledgment of needs. As far as who "everyone" truly is
and who belongs in the moral community, Utilitarians believe that all beings that can suffer deserve
a home in the moral community. Therefore humans and non–human animals, who are both
susceptible to suffering, are morally equal. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Ultimately, this argument claims that if it is immoral to eat "marginal" human beings and to
painfully experiment on them, then it is immoral to treat non–human animals in the same regard.
Because it is almost always the case that it is immoral to treat humans in this manner, it is almost
always immoral to do the same to non–human animals. Moreso, if we are not willingly ready to kill
and eat or experiment on human beings, then we should not feel as though non–human animals shall
be treated this way. In the eyes of Utilitarians, we are all equals and we, humans and non–human
animals, deserve to be seen as moral

Do Humans Have Moral Obligations On Human Animals? Essay
Do humans have moral obligations to mon–human animals?
Oxford English dictionary defines moral as "of or relating to human character or behavior
considered as right and wrong," and obligation as "an act or course of action to which a person is
morally or legally bound." Accordingly, the term "moral obligations" can be interpreted as duties
that arise out of humans' consideration of right and wrong. In other words, it is up to humans to
judge and decide whether or not certain actions toward non–human animals are right or wrong,
based on the moral standards we establish and are commonly adopted. In regard to the commonly
debated question, "do humans have moral obligations to non–human animals," the answer is yes, but
in a restricted sense – that is, our moral obligations to other humans are our priority.
First of all, I must clarify that I do not think that our moral obligations to non–human animals do not
arise from non–human animals' rights. I am fully convinced by Cohen's claim that animals do not
have rights, because the concept of rights exists only within a human moral world. Many animal
rights supporters would agree that the relationship between rights and obligations is absolutely
reciprocal, as Cohen describes in "Do Animals Have Rights?" in which he refutes this claim.
According to Cohen, in order to have rights, one has to be "a moral agent" who is "to be able to
grasp the generality of moral restrictions on our will," and this quality is present only in humans,

Animals Have Been Used For Animal Therapy From Early As
Animals have been used for animal therapy from early as the 18th century (Chu et al., 2009).
Animals have been shown to aid in lowering stress, feelings of isolation and depression. Studies
have shown that different types of animal therapy can be helpful with a range of mental illnesses,
from schizophrenia to anxiety to dementia. There are many ways that animals can be implemented
into different forms of therapy. There are uses for animals in psychological and physical therapy.
Each of these present paths to help different types of mental illnesses in separate ways. For my
research, I conducted a survey to determine a general idea of what people know about therapy
animals and their contributions to human health.
Animal Assisted ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
That would have allowed for perspective on both sides which would have been good data to have,
but there is a lot of data to compare the characteristics that pets present that make them feel like
family members.
Next, the focus turned more on questions about therapy animals and what those surveyed knew
about animal therapy. These questions, "Which animal would you choose to have as a therapy
animal?", and "What animals have you seen used as therapy animals?", are able to gauge the
knowledge of therapy animals and the frequency that some animals are used compared to others.
The question about which animal the participant would choose was based on the idea of less
common animals, such as goats, being used as therapy animals and if someone would choose a farm
animal as a therapy aid.
The last section of questions focused on mental health and stress. The questions were based around
the mental health and/or stress level of the participant to see how these factors may affect their
opinion on the use of therapy animals for psychological therapy. The responses collected compare
the stress level of the participant and their feelings on an animal's positive influence on their own
mental health or decrease in stress levels. These questions were based off some of the information
that I found in the article by Mills (2014). He wrote about the bonds between humans and animals
and how they have been shown to

Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT)
Introduction
The practice of using animals as therapy tools is becoming ever more popular and common place in
the mental health field. Animal assisted therapy (AAT) was formally defined by the Delta Society as
"a goal–directed intervention in which an animal that meets specific criteria is an integral part of the
treatment process" (Kruger, Trachtenberg, & Serpell, 2004). The hope is that the specially trained
animal will help facilitate conversation, and subsequently healing, between the therapist and the
client. AAT is focused on improving the humans physical, mental, emotional, and social functioning.
Animal assisted therapy is not to be confused with service animals: service animals fall under the
category of animal–assisted activities ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Horses have the physical ability to support a large amount of weight, and it has been increasingly
found that they have the same ability to do this with our emotions as well. Therapy where a horse is
involved is called equine–assisted therapy (EAT). EAT came to light in the 1980's and it is defined
as "experiential psychotherapy that includes equine handling, grooming, lunging, and riding"
(Willerson). The practice of EAT has been found to be effective in working with children, adults,
couples, individuals, families and have been used to help with the treatment and healing of
individuals who have suffered from trauma, addiction, and depression. The goal of EAT is not to
train someone to ride a horse, rather, the goal is to train them to learn to control, interact, and
connect with their internal and external

Animal Assisted Therapy ( Aat ) Essay
There are many positive effects of owning a pet. Animals can increase the health and well–being of
individuals and can be a useful tool in the counseling arena. Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT) has
been in use since the early 18th century. England hospitals used animals as a method of socialization
and to boost morale ("History of animal assisted therapy," 2014). Since it's early roots, AAT has
evolved as a method of therapy that helps individuals and group members overcome obstacles and
achieve goals.
One of the more well–known successful therapy animals is Oscar the cat. Oscar the cat comforts
patients at a Rhode Island Nursing Home shortly before their death. He has the ability to know when
a patient in the home is close to death and he naps near them to bring individuals a sense of peace
and calmness in their final hours.
This author will investigate how animals play a role in the therapeutic process. The group theory and
tenets, the organization and function, the benefits, the limitations, and this author's thoughts will be
explored.
Group Theory/Tenets
AAT is not limited to one theoretical orientation. As defined by the American Humane Association,
AAT is "a goal oriented intervention in which an animal is incorporated as an integral part of the
clinical health–care process [...] delivered by a professional health or human service provider"
(Uyemura, 2016). This author will explore Solution–Focused, Person–Centered, Gestalt, Behavioral,
Cognitive–Behavior and

Analyzing Peter Singer's Essay All Animals Are Equal
In Peter Singer's article All Animals Are Equal (Winston 29–36), Singer talks about the point of
view Jeremy Bentham had on the capacity to suffer, going into Bentham's idea on what humans
would do with non–human animals in order to satisfy our taste for their flesh. That in order to have
meat products on the table at an affordable price to the population of that area, we must treat non–
human animals like machines, enclosing them in unsuitable conditions for their entire life (p. 33).
Where I do not disagree with the basis of Singer's argument, I do disagree with some of the minor
facts used to support this argument. I disagree with the notion that the human race is ready to do
anything to another species in order to satisfy our taste, that non–human animals are seen like
machines and they are kept in unsuitable conditions. In general, Singer's argument seems to be
based on vague points and generalizes the human population. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
33) is not true for some people, but not everyone. There is an increase in the number of people
becoming vegetarians, and vegans in Canada. With this, those who do eat meat may only eat it
because it is a cheaper source of protein. Thus, the line about making meat affordable is true, as with
the rising rates of unemployment, the need to have meat at a lower price is critical, but that does not
mean society is cutting short on how these non–human animals live. Those who eat meat based on
either choosing too or a low income, would hopefully wish that non–human animals are raised in
good farming conditions and are killed as humanly as

Essay on The Use of Non-Human Animals in Psychological...
The Use of Non–Human Animals in Psychological Research
Animals used in research have proved to be an important factor for the uses of medicine, for
example Flemming found the use of penicillin was an effective antibiotic when it was used on mice.
Since 1822, legislation has limited how scientists use animals. In the UK, the use of animals in
psychological investigations has been constrained by ethical and moral guidelines. Current UK
legislation in the Animals Scientific Procedures Act 1986 states that all animal research must only
take place in a laboratory that are institutionally licensed for animal research. It must be apart of an
approved research project. The license will only be given ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Bateson argues that there are three main criteria that should be taken into account when deciding
whether a study on an animal is justifiable. Firstly the quality of the research which, can be assessed
by the funding agency. The amount of animal suffering, this can be assessed from the animal's
behaviour. And finally the likelihood of the benefits from using the animal, this is very hard to
predict ahead of time.
There are two views on animal research; some people are either for or against it. Birch et al. found
that there are benefits of non human research for example his research on animal behaviour on
damaged crops, which led to the development of scarecrows to prevent any further damage to both
the crops and avoiding poison to kill the animals. This study served a purpose to save both the
animal and the crop.
Scientific arguments for animal research states tat it has been a major contributor to our knowledge
of basic learning processes such as conditioning and motivational systems such as Skinner's research
with pigeons. Also Selye's experiment on rats showed an important connection between stress and
diseases. However using animals in studies to test hypotheses about human physiology would be
incorrect; to find out about human physiology you would need to test humans.

Pros And Cons Of Utilitarianism
1. Utilitarian's believe animals should be considered as equally morally relevant as humans because
the rights/interests of all beings aside from any form of discrimination or prejudice (speciesism)
should be morally relevant. That being said, like humans, non–human animals possess sentience, or
the the ability to experience pain and pleasure. Having sentience is enough to say that non human
animals therefore also possess interests, interests that are similar (although not exact) to those of a
human. These common interests include being pain free, and living a life free from suffering.
Because utilitarianism entails taking into consideration the like interests of every party involved,
animals must then be taken into consideration, when appropriate, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Regan rejects utilitarianism as an answer for whether zoos are morally defensible because
utilitarianism requires extensive information regarding how much good or bad/ costs and benefits
are generated for all who are effected. Regan argues that the extent of information that would be
required to use utilitarianism as an answer to the question is more information than can possibly be
attained. In other words, there are far too many aspects and interests of humans and non humans to
take into consideration equally. It is an unachievable task and therefore Regan believes deciphering
the question via the rights view is a more tangible

Singer's Distinction Between Sentience and Self-Consciousness
Singer's distinction between sentience and self–consciousness Introduction In the past, a number of
uprisings rose from the oppressed groups all over the world. The oppressed realized the ill treatment
and consequently to the initiative to campaign vigorously for equality. Equality is the treatment of
all persons with the same preference. For instance, the Black Liberation Movement called for
equality with the whites (Chappell, 2011). These are people with a consciousness and ability to
sense. They saw and felt the oppressive nature of the white's treatment against them and reacted.
However, the innate things such as trees, animals, both human and non–human do not have
expressive ability that people can understand. Rights activist people and groups continue to elicit
mixed reactions due to their call for fair treatment of such animals. Sentience and self–
consciousness It is difficult to realize the latent prejudice in the personal attributes towards
particular groups until the prejudiced forcefully point it to us. A liberation call demands that we
expand the moral horizons and the reinterpretation of basic moral principle of equality. The practices
that in the previous were natural are now inevitably unjustifiable prejudice (Höchsmann, 2002). This
raises the question of whether the attitudes we exhibit are void of criticism. The rise of animal
protection groups and the laws that govern and guard the animal's rights brings a completely
different perspective of equality.

Cecil The Lion Peter Singer Analysis
Remember Cecil the Lion? A lot of people were shocked, even outraged, when they heard about his
death at the hands of an American hunter in 2015. The response to the lion's death was so strong that
the guy who shot Cecil basically went into hiding until he issued an apology. Our society reacts with
horror when we hear about a majestic lion being shot or sacks of kittens being tossed into rivers, or
owners training their dogs to fight each other for sport. However, what is the difference between
killings Cecil and killing a duck, deer, cow, pig, or a chicken? How do we reconcile the strong
feelings many of us have about certain animals, mainly the cute ones like kittens and puppies, with
the way we actual use animals in our own lives?
Most of us think nothing about using non–human animals for their meat, milk, or skins and not only
do we use animals in these ways, but using them as we do almost always harms them. A common
method for testing cosmetics, for example, involves restraining rabbits and putting the product into
their eyes, leaving it for a set amount of time and then washing it out and checking for adverse
reactions. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Singer reminds us that there was a time when most Americans thought it was totally normal and
right for members of one group to literally own members of another group based on a morally
irrelevant difference, skin color. Today, the members of the oppressing group look back on the
reasoning of their ancestors with horror and shame. Singer predicts that there will be a time when
our descendants look back on us and our treatment of non–human animals with the same reaction. In
a nutshell, Singer says, "If it's not okay to do it to a human, then it's not okay to do it to an animal
either." You might think that you agree with Singer, but do you really agree with

Animal Rights and Laws
Animal Rights The world has existed with the presence of both living and non–living matter. Human
beings have been accorded the right of protection and preservation of the environment, where the
animals belong. In essence, humanity is all about coexisting with animals and plants, together with
the other non–living matter. With preference of human beings over animals, and with preference of
animals over plants, every category higher than the other, is relinquishing the capacity to dominate
and coexist with the higher authority. The world is evidently a home to both plants and animals,
including the non–living matter. All animals are living. Moreover, all plants are living. The
distinction between human beings and other animals has led to the establishment of a code of
relationship and use which human beings has embraced over the years. Human beings have
dominion over animals. This is in accordance with the innate characteristics and capabilities that
human beings possess unlike other animals (Hargrove 168). With respect to this, human beings have
often used animals in assorted ways. The many ways that animals are beneficial to human beings
has elicited concerns over the rights of animals. Because of this, there is an ethical relationship
between plants and animals, together with animals and man. There is a philosophy that human
beings are a dominant factor in the environment. Evidently, human beings have used and misused
animals as part of the other facets found in the

Analysis Of Contractarianism And Animal Rights Essay
Mark Rowlands in his article Contractarianism and Animal Rights focuses on John Rawl's social
contract argument. Rowlands writes that Rawls liberal egalitarian version of contractarianism is
more than capable of assigning a direct moral status to non–human animals. This essay will set out
Rowlands views with reference to philosophers and academics writing about the rights of non–
human animals. Contractarianism is generally thought a theory that alleges only individuals who can
understand and choose to take part in an agreement or 'social contract' can have moral rights
(Rowlands, 1997). As Tom Regan points out "animals, since they cannot understand contracts,
obviously cannot sign; and since they cannot sign, they have no rights" (Regan, 2009, p.843).
In, what Rowlands calls, 'the conceptual heart' of Rawls contractarianism, is his idea of an 'original
position' and 'a veil of ignorance'. Rawls describes the original position as the appropriate initial
status quo which ensures that the fundamental agreements reached in it are fair (Rawls, 1973, p.17)
A person finds themselves in the original position under a 'veil of ignorance' deprived of certain
facts about themselves, for example, their conception of good and their socio–economic position in
society. All occupants of the original position are conceived of as 'rational'. Rowlands doesn't insist
that all non–human animals are classified as rational agents, but rather that there is nothing in Rawls
contractarianism that

Non Human Animal Cognitive Psychology
Animals communicate to each other just as we do by making sounds to warn another. However,
some nonhuman animals developed languages and cognitive capacities; psychologist refer it as
animal cognitive. From the psychology 7th edition textbook by Sandra E. Hockenbury, Susan A.
Nolan, and Don H. Hockenbury stated that "Going beyond languages, psychologists today study
many aspects of animal behavior, including memory, problem solving, planning, cooperation, and
even deception. Collectively, such research reflects an active area of psychological research that is
referred to as animal cognitive or comparative cognitive. (289) There are many examples of
intelligent nonhuman animals, such as chimpanzees and elephants. Furthermore, the animal that ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They are also intelligent enough to recognize themselves in a mirror, and as well as empathy, which
makes us human because of our emotions and feelings. Dolphins creates sounds, make physical
contacts, and body clusters to communicate with their own and another species. They make vocals
such as whistles, clicking, and squeaking sounds, to interact with another. An good example of an
intelligent dolphin is Kelly the dolphin at the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in Mississippi;
from the study, Kelly the dolphin has a good critical thinking skills comparing to human. From the
article "Why dolphins are deep thinkers" written by Anuschka de Rohan; Rohan stated many
examples such as showing Kelly having a sense of future and delay gratification. Rohan said "When
people drop paper into the water she hides it under a rock at the bottom of the pool. The next time a
trainer passes, she goes down to the rock and tears off a piece of paper to give to the trainer. After a
fish reward, she goes back down, tears off another piece of paper, gets another fish, and so on."
Kelly wasn't trained this way, but she figured another way to receive

All Animals Are Equal By Essay
Argumentative Essay: All Animals are Equal
In his book all animals are equal, Singer argues that human beings should extend to non–human
species the same equality of consideration that is extended to fellow human beings. He based his
argument on the fact that past liberation movements aimed at condemning discriminations based on
gender and sex had been declared absurd at their onset, but had later on yielded fruits. This
discrimination against animals, he argues, is similar to these past discriminations. For this reason, he
wants the human species to consider non–human animals as having rights just as humans have. In
his opinion, the only criterion of moral importance that succeeds in including human beings and
excluding all non–humans, is their membership in the homo–sapiens species category, and using this
membership as a criterion of moral importance, is completely arbitrary. In other words Singer
believes that we should attach importance to the interests of individuals without regard to their
species (Daly, 1997). A human being should not be considered superior to a cow just because one is
a cow and the other is a dog.
Contrary to this argument however, Singer's view is not very radical since human beings and non–
human animals have different interests, and so the treatment of both species the same will only mean
giving fair amounts of different treatment. Singer gives examples of the Black Liberation
movements and the fight for women's rights (Moore & Parker, 2007). If

Informative Essay On Riding Horses
(Surtees). Behavior is a key factor in riding horses. Individuals can learn how to better themselves
for the future by improving the way they act. When a young person is focused on brushing, feeding,
or working with a horse, their focus is no longer on their own problems and issues. People who have
struggled to achieve their treatment goals have made significant breakthroughs through equine
therapy. Like all animals, horses set their own boundaries that a rider has to learn respect. Loving an
animal can help a child learn how to love themselves as well. "The need for animals to be taken care
for on a daily basis fulfills the humans need to be needed, to nurture, and to love." (Trotter).
Children learn to become responsible for themselves and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Therapeutic riding allows volunteers and horses to come together to benefit the lives of people
living with disabilities. A little girl with cerebral palsy has had more progress with two weeks of
therapeutic riding than she did with ten years of other treatments. Winston Churchill says, "There is
just something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man." By participating in
therapeutic horseback riding, mentally challenged people are able to achieve things that may have
seemed impossible before. Riding horses can actually help a person burn calories without their
knowledge. Simply being outdoors can help reduce a person's level of stress. Horses help children
make connections, build relationships, and improve communication skills. They build confidence in
a timid child and they have the power to ease the pain of depression that some people may have
previously developed. Horses are easy to work with and they can connect with humans on so many
levels. I remember when I was 7 years old my grandma bought me my first horse. As I ventured out
to the field I heard a chorus of whinnies that always made me smile. Horses are creatures that
always have a warm welcome. A horse does not see a child with disabilities. A horse simply sees a
child. Horses have an extraordinary gift to accept and love all humans. For a rider to be successful
they must develop a partnership with their

A Rhetorical Analysis Of Peter Singer's All Animals Are Equal
In Philosopher Peter Singer's All Animals are Equal argumentative essay, Singer wants to emphasize
the idea that animals should be considered to have equal moral value like humans.
In Singer's argument to liberate the rights of animals, he acknowledges the potential rights of non–
humans and how they should be granted equal moral consideration. Clearly, there are obvious
differences between a human and a non–human, but Singer wants to establish a relationship from a
moral standpoint in order to reason for equal treatment between the two types. To start off his
argument, Singer wants to formulate that the most important moral distinction of any human/non–
human is if any of them can suffer. If the human/non–human can suffer, then the human/non–human

The Two Principles Of A Basis Of Our Brain Capacity,...
Tiraj Lucas
Professor Onishi
Philosophy 229
March 5th, 2017
INTRODUCTION
The problem at hand is that majority humans believe we are superior to non–human animals on the
basis of our brain capacity, ability, and preferences of life. The two principles of consequentialism I
plan to work with is the two that consequentialism are based on: 1. Whether an act is right or wrong
depends only on the results of that act. 2. The better consequences an act produces, the better or
more right that act. These two principles play a part in non–human animal inequality because it
emphasizes that a person should choose the action that maximizes the good of consequences for all
living beings. If we apply the first principle we could conclude that non–human ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Another argument is that it is believed to natural and ancestral for humans to eat non–human
animals. Neverless, in cavemen days their life span was much shorter, they did not kill nearly as
many animals that are killed today in factory farming, they ate for survival, and their diets consisted
of fruits and vegetables; not McDonalds and steroid induced animals. Humans are the only species
in the animal kingdom who have to cook and season their meat before eating it. We do not salivate
naturally at the sight of raw meat like real carnivores do. We would get food poisoning, salmonella,
e.coli, mad cow disease, norovirus, trichinosis, etc, when we ever did eat raw or unhealthy meat. Yet
somehow there are people who think our human species hasn 't evolved passed the 'need to eat meat
to survive ' phase, and continue to use ancestral history as an illogical reason to continue to
contribute to suffering and environmental atrocities. Non–human animal equality is not only an
ignored environmental issue but an ignored social issue, resulting in another form of racism or
sexism by the name of speciesism. Speciesm is "the idea that being human is a good enough reason
for human animals to have greater moral rights than non–human animals. A prejudice or bias in
favor of the interests

Substance Dualism Is The Belief That The Mind And The Body...
Substance dualism is the belief that the mind and the body are separate entities, consequently, an
argument for dualism is that i. minds can experience anger, ii. Nothing physical can experience
anger and therefore, minds are not physical. In this examination my goal is to show that minds are
physical. I will argue against the second premise, showing that the mind is the brain, which is
physical. I will do so by referring to the functionalist school of thought and additionally, by
examining the functioning of the brain with regard to research on neuroscience. Furthermore, I will
exhibit that substance dualist Rene Descartes' work on non–human animals is inconsistent with
research that shows the existence of mental states in non–human animals, thus confirming that
minds are physical. Functionalism is the belief that a mental state, such as pain, "is to have an
internal state which does a certain job" (Ravenscroft, 2005, p. 50). For example, the pain that a
human being feels and the pain that an octopus feels may have different physical processes within
the brain, but the pain is still being felt; in other words, "to be in (or have) mental state M is to have
an internal state which does the 'M–job' (Ravenscroft, 2005, p. 51). Any mental state M is defined in
terms of inputs, outputs and internal connections, and for example, the pain role's input may be
stepping on a Lego piece, the output may be cursing and finally a possible internal connection,
which is the causal link

Anthropocentric Environmental Ethics
A critique against the Western anthropocentric environmental ethics, using the treatment of animals
and their rights as an example.
Brennan (1984) defined environmental ethics as the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral
relationship of human beings to and also the value and moral status of the environment and its non–
human contents. This essay will look at environmental ethics as a discipline, its development and
challenges, the anthropocentric and non–anthropocentric approaches, the critiques of
anthropocentrism, the use of animal rights as an example of the importance of non–
anthropocentrism
Contemporary environmental ethics only emerged as an academic discipline in the 1970's
(Dasgupta, 2001). According to Brennan (1984), ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The answer is that suffering is suffering and love is love and we cannot wipe out human suffering
without addressing the suffering of all living beings. The person who would brutalize an innocent
animal is the same person who would brutalize his or her closest relative. Any place that suffering
can be addressed is a good place to focus attention. Many humans have an attitude that restricts their
ability to understand or empathize with non–human animals and other life forms and has some
serious implications for all life on this planet. Animals or other life forms that don't express
themselves in human ways by language or in terms easily comprehensible by common human
standards are often considered less developed, inferior, more primitive or mechanistic, and usually
of less importance than humans (Dominick, 1998). This viewpoint has been used to justify using
animals as objects for human ends. Since humans are the superior creatures, "dumb, unfeeling" non–
humans can be disregarded, mistreated, killed or whole species eliminated without much concern for
their existence in itself, only their usefulness or lack of it to humankind (Harvey, 2005). Many
humans, as they see other animals are more like them in patterns of behavior and expression of
intelligence, begin to respect them more and treat

Accepting Non Human Animals As Our Moral Equals Essay
Zhiyuan Li
Philosophy 2367
Accepting Non–Human Animals as Our Moral Equals
In her essay Speaking of Animal Rights, Warren (1987) argues for the weak animal rights position,
which holds that non–human animals have weaker rights than human beings because non–human
animals do not have the same moral status as us human beings (383–4). This is due to their lack of
the ability to "reason well enough to function as autonomous moral agents" (385), which she
believes is a requirement for being moral of human beings (384–5). In this essay, I will argue that
Warren's weak animal rights position misses the entire point about speaking of animals rights and
we should instead recognize non–human animals as our moral equals and grant them full moral
rights in virtue of their entitlement to dignified existence , rather than basing moral equality and
rights upon rationality, as Warren indicates.
Warren thinks that the role which morality plays in society is to regulate people's behavior (384). In
order for morality to perform this function, each member of society should all recognize other
people as her moral equals, which Warren takes to be "the price we must each pay for their
recognition of our moral equality" (384). Therefore, if we are going to accept other entities into
human morality, it is necessary that those entities are able to recognize our moral equality, so that we
can recognize theirs as well (384). Warren argues that this will require the entities to have a certain
capacity

Descartes 's Discourse On Method
In his Discourse on Method, Rene Descartes asserts that all human beings are equal in their ability
to reason and that any differences in opinion are not a result of a difference in ability to reason, but
in the application of the reasoning. Descartes begins his argument for this claim by stating that
rational thought and reason is what separates humans from animals, and that if all people have this
ability to reason, then that must be the distinguishing feature of humanity. He goes on to explain that
while individuals may differ within a species in regard to their non–essential qualities, they will not
differ in the species' distinguishing feature. This rule accounts for the diversity within humanity as a
species (such as differing hair colors, heights, and weights) while equalizing humanity's ability to
reason. From these premises, Descartes concludes that all humans must have an equal ability to
reason and that differences in thought are merely a result of differences in the application of the
individual's reasoning. In Part V of his Discourse, Descartes continues his argument for reasoning
being the essence of humanity by arguing that non–human animals and machines cannot reason, and
therefore reasoning must be solely attributed to humans. Descartes presents two tests to determine
whether or not a being is human or non–human, both based on the adaptability of the being's
responses. He first asserts that since machines and non–human animals cannot communicate via
spoken

The, Moral, And Moral Relativism
On the perfectionist account there exists an established categorization of the moral status of
conscious persons or beings. The moral perfectionist maintains that morality is hierarchical, which is
to say that they hold that differentially weighted considerations should be given to different beings
depending on the level to which they possess certain characteristics. For example, throughout the
history of western philosophy one of the most popularly touted of the characteristics of higher order
moral agents has been the possession of formal language. Consider, then, the non–human animal
from this perspective – from a Heideggarian perspective, if you will. According to Heidegger
(2001), the Animal does not die; it merely perishes and is, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
It is meant to show that animality is the metaphysical candle which casts a shadow over whatever
being is to be made morally incomparable to the Human. To substantiate this claim we can consider
that from the historical perspective, the subjugation of humans – from women, slaves, the
cognitively and physically disabled, to the ethnic or religious minority – has been accompanied by
attempts to ensure that they are "animalized". By attempts to ensure that they are excluded from the
moral community – a delegation attributed to their lack of the fundamental features or qualities of
moral agents. Fortunately, though not necessarily consistently, in the Western liberal modernity, such
animalized individuals have come to be afforded the same rights as other members of the human
community, despite their lack of many of the qualities which have typically been used to affirm the
moral importance of a human being. Again, although this is a fortunate transition, it is rather
inconsistent one – if we are to reflect on the ways in which we typically distinguish the Animal from
the Human. Indeed, if we are to suggest that all humans have some sort of inherent rights – either
ascribed or discovered – it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that such possessions must be
predicated on the presence or absence of

Argument For Animal Rights, By Peter Singer
For years, philosophers, humanitarians, and support groups, take in mind the popular organization
PETA, have been advocating for animal rights. Animal rights are the benefits humans provide to
animals. These benefits are protection against abuse and give animals humane treatment. Peter
Singer is one of the many to introduce animal welfare, starting with his book titled Animal
Liberation. Some support the idea of not using animals as a food source, clothing and other animal
related products, while vegans go as far as to boycott and protest companies that use the animals
suffering for profit by creating animal–by products. Why should we extend equal consideration of
interests to animals? How different should those rights be from human rights? ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
For example, humans kill animals that trespass private property, make too much noise or simply for
enjoyment. Same consequences follow animals whose meat is known to be enjoyable, have
attractive furs or patterns, or are used in experiments for research purposes. Therefore, what makes
it right to kill an animal for these various purposes, but makes it wrong when it involves a human?
This question can be answered in many ways, depending on what belief system, including religion
and education, one believes in. It follows that the most common reason for denying animal rights is
that humans are more intelligent than animals, therefore animals do not reason or think like we
humans do. It is obvious that there are differences between animals and humans, like the structure of
our brains and bodies, but that does not necessarily mean that these differences are not morally
relevant. For example, a mentally challenged person does not have the same abilities of an
intelligent person, however, that does not make the well–being of this mentally challenged person

Different Opinions Of People From Non Human Animals And...
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see
different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that
human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe
to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non–livings. The 20th
century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, "Free will – the ability to make decisions
about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non–human animals and machines 1". He went
to describe human beings as "self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or
plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He summed up human nature as "existence precedes essence". In his book, Existentialism and
Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. "It means that, first of all, man exists, turns
up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist
conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something,
and he himself will have made what he will be 4". After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent
view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they
want because as Sartre said, "people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the
choices they make 5".
Firstly, perhaps the most egoistic man seen in the film would be Juror 3. He is characterized in the
movie as a very strong and very forceful, an extremely opinionated man with a streak of sadism 6.
He is intolerant of opinions other than his own and is accustomed to forcing his wishes and views
upon others 7. He admitted that he would pull the switch on the boy if he had the chance, claiming
that the boy is guilty without going over the evidence thoroughly, even when the evidence proves
the boy is innocent. Juror 3's opinion of the boy reflects a personal experience with his own son,
who ran away, and he has not seen his son since. Juror 3 used the experience of his own son and

Animal Testing is Wrong! Essay
Picture yourself in a testing laboratory; needles, drugs, and knives pointed in your direction with
you having no idea what's going on around you, this is how animals everyday are treated, we have
to stop this now! Millions of animals are killed in laboratories everyday with no chance to object to
what the testers are about to do to them. Animals feel as much pain as humans do so why does it
make it okay to test on them when they are so alike to humans? Every day people test makeup,
shampoos, and medicines on animals, the strange thing is that animals have different skin, hair, and
internal organs than humans have. Since the animals have different internal organs than humans
only 5–25% of the testing results are agreeable between animals ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Animals are denied rights for human unlikeness, but are tested on for human likeness. Human rights
don't rationalize animal experimentation; just because humans aren't giving animals rights it doesn't
mean that humans have the right to test helpless animals. Animals have families, feel pain, suffer,
and communicate just like humans do, so why don't animals get the same protection as humans? If
humans feel that testing on animals is nothing bad then why don't we put people under the telescope
and test on them instead? Animals have as much right to life as humans do! Don't judge animals on
how much hair on their bodies, but on their likeness to human life and procedures. Animals are now
used as objects of experiments to test a variety of products; like shampoo, makeup, and medicines.
Animals are almost always used in cancer research but animals never get the human form of cancer
which affects the lungs. Animals are not required in animal testing, but people seem to ignore this
statement and test on animals anyway. Testing cosmetics on animals is somewhat pointless because
animals have different skin and hair than humans have. Animals are not even required in animal
testing at all; a makeup company can release an untested product at their own risks. If any product
says "cruelty free" on it, it doesn't necessarily mean that the products inside the product were not
tested on. Animals are used to test so many products now–a–days, animals are used to test so many
useless

Animal Testing For The Sole Benefit Of Humans
For years, there has been a debate regarding the use of animals in medical testing for the sole benefit
of humans. Many people believe that testing on nonhuman animals solve the many issues that
humans face, but most of the time animals are exploited and put through painful experimental
processes. The purpose of this paper is to examine the possible alternatives to animal testing and the
evaluate whether there is a reduction in animals being used for experiments. The author of this paper
will examine four journal articles titled as the following: Accept No Substitutes: The Ethics of
Alternatives, Scientists and Animal Research: Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?, Strategic Focus on 3R
Principles Reveals Major Reductions in the Use of Animals in Pharmaceutical Toxicity Testing, No
Animals Harmed: Toward a Paradigm Shift in Toxicity Testing. Each journal article highlights
different arguments of the said problem and reveals information about animal testing that many may
not be aware of. The author will summarize all four journal articles and apply a response to each
one.
Joel Marks, the writer of the Accept No Substitutes: The Ethics of Alternatives journal, aims to
express the reason why alternatives to animal testing should not be considered. Marks (2012) starts
out by stating that "it is common to argue that animal experimentation is justified by its essential
contribution to the advancement of medical science" (p. 1). According to Marks, this argument
contains an empirical claim that

A Career In Equine Assisted Therapy
To be an individual with a helper's heart is something that not everyone is born with. I am truly
blessed to have been born with a servant's mentality. To me, helping is using your abilities to better
the quality of another individual's life. Not only that, but I also believe that it is being present and
available for anyone who may need it, even if the need is not immediate. Helping can be a wide
variety of definitions, and it is not always performing a service; sometimes it is merely being there
for someone to sit with them. Yet, helping others is not always easy, in fact, often, it is very difficult,
especially in the field of psychology. As a counselor, the environment you work in may require you
to assist people whom are there against ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I want to make huge strides in the animal assisted therapy world, and be able to reach out to
individuals, and groups, so that they can get the support and help they need sooner, rather than later.
Often in adolescent years, we can be stubborn. Teenagers often think they are invincible to the
world, and in return, do not ask for the help they so desperately need. We are from a generation
where mental health and illness is so negatively stigmatized that nobody wants to talk about it or
seek help for fear of being criticized. This needs to stop, and I believe the only way to change this is
to talk about it, and introduce people to more unique ways to approach it. I know that I dreaded
seeing a therapist for so long because when I would go talk to people, it would feel confrontational,
or like they felt sorry for me. One of the worst situations is going in to talk to a doctor, and seeing
that look of pity on their face for what you have been through. I think that this is probably an image
that a lot of people have in their heads when it comes to seeing a therapist, and that is the reason
people are so afraid of the traditional couch and question setting. It is because of this that I want to
find more hands on, kinesthetic therapy theories to introduce

Therapeutic Horseback Riding and Children with Autism...
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a complex developmental disorder that affects a person's social
interaction and communication. This disorder is mainly characterized by having difficulty with
social interaction, communication, and having restricted behaviors. Difficulty with social interaction
means someone will struggle to communicate their feelings/emotions, understand how others feel or
think, develop peer relationships, and understand nonverbal behaviors (eye gaze, facial expressions,
etc). Difficulty with communication will vary among the individual. Some individuals will develop
expressive language, while others will not. The speech of those that do develop expressive language
will often be repetitive, rote, and lack ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
EAA is a subtype of animal–assisted activities, which can be provided by anyone who receives
specialized training and certification. Equine–assisted therapy (EAT), a subtype of animal–assisted
therapy, is the integration of the horse into goal–directed treatment and is provided by licensed
therapist. (p. 205)
Hippotherapy is a specialized type of equine–assisted therapy (EAT). It means involving a horse
during the course of treatment. In order to conduct hippotherapy, one must be a licensed therapist
(physical, occupational, or speech–language pathologist) and be certified through the Professional
Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship (PATH). During hippotherapy, the client will sit on the
horse's back and adjust their body to the movements of the horse's walk. "The client does not
influence the horse; rather, the horse's movements influences the rider. Functional riding skills are
not taught, and any improvement in the client's quality of life is secondary" (Macauley & Gutierrez,
2004). Within the scope of practice of the therapist, the client will perform activities that will help
achieve the set treatment goals while sitting on top of the horse, complementing their horse's walk.
"Both physical and psychosocial benefits have been documents or reports from the use of EAT and
hippotherapy" (Macauley & Gutierrez, 2004). The following three studies provide further evidence
of the effect of

Treatment Of Non-Human Animals

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Amber Rodriguez

More from Amber Rodriguez (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Treatment Of Non-Human Animals