Animal Right or Animal Welfare?

Almost all of us grew up with eating meats, wearing leather clothing and going to circuses or zoos. Also, in this age and year, many of us bought our beloved pets from the pet shops and keep them at home. But, peoples don’t consider the impacts of the actions on the animals involved. For whatever, peoples will ask a question: Why should non human animal have rights? Further, peoples may have a traditional perspective where animals are put on earth to serve human being. Therefore, arguments of animal rights are not making any sense in this society.

According to Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (2011), animal rights defined as the rights of animals to be treated well, for example by not being hunted or used for medical research. In Asian and African countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Uganda and Sudan, there is still much disagreement of accepting the concept of animal rights and less disagreement of the consequences or impacts of accepting that animals have rights. Peoples tend to ignore and neglect the animal rights in this modern and well educated society which is morally wrong. By accepting the doctrine of animal rights means there is no experiments on animals, no breeding and killing animals for food, clothes and medicine, no use of animal as hard labor, no animal hunting, no selective breeding for any reason other than the benefits of the animal and no use animals for entertainment purpose (BBC, 2013). 

 

How right are animal rights? How far should we go in protecting every of the animal rights? In general, in the context of animal rights, animals are equal to human, where they should have their own life and own rights. And basically, it means that we human have no right in manipulating them, instead, leave them alone as how they are originally.

Nonetheless, how true is it that human and animal share the equality in status and every aspect of life? Are not we human are assigned as caretaker of the earth and every non-human animals? If it is so, animal rights play a big controversy here. Looking into taking care and well managing of the living animals on earth, perhaps animal welfare plays a better role than animal rights. 

 

Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment. Protecting an animal's welfare means providing for its physical and mental needs. Ensuring animal welfare is a human responsibility that includes consideration for all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.

The ‘five freedoms’, which were originally developed by the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), provide valuable guidance on animal welfare. They are now internationally recognized, and have been adapted slightly since their formulation. The current form is: -

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst – ready access to water and a diet to maintain health and vigor.
   
   
2. Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
   
   
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
   
   
4. Freedom to express normal behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animals own kind.
   
   
5. Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

These 5 freedoms are ideal states, and it is recognized that some freedoms may conflict in a situation where animals are cared for by man e.g. the conflict between treatment (such as veterinary treatment) to cure illness/disease and freedom from fear and distress (that may be caused by the handling and procedure).

The AVMA, as a medical authority for the health and welfare of animals, offers the following eight integrated principles for developing and evaluating animal welfare policies, resolutions, and actions.

• The responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, recreation, work, education, exhibition, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals, is consistent with the Veterinarian's Oath.
• Decisions regarding animal care, use, and welfare shall be made by balancing scientific knowledge and professional judgment with consideration of ethical and societal values.
• Animals must be provided water, food, proper handling, health care, and an environment appropriate to their care and use, with thoughtful consideration for their species-typical biology and behavior.
• Animals should be cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, and suffering.
• Procedures related to animal housing, management, care, and use should be continuously evaluated, and when indicated, refined or replaced.
• Conservation and management of animal populations should be humane, socially responsible, and scientifically prudent.
• Animals shall be treated with respect and dignity throughout their lives and, when necessary, provided a humane death.
• The veterinary profession shall continually strive to improve animal health and welfare through scientific research, education, collaboration, advocacy, and the development of legislation and regulations.

In conclusion, animal rights denote the philosophical belief that animals should have rights, including the right to live their lives free of human intervention (and ultimate death at the hands of humans). Animal rightists are philosophically opposed to the use of animals by humans (although some accept 'symbiotic' relationships, such as companion animal ownership. On the other hand, animal welfare denotes the desire to prevent unnecessary animal suffering (that, whilst not categorically opposed to the use of animals, wants to ensure a good quality of life and humane death). Perhaps, animal welfare will put things better in a well balanced state.

 

Do We Need to Care about Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism?

As the dawn near the 21st century nears, prejudice, racism and discrimination are the most persistent social problem in this society today. The concept of prejudice, racism and discrimination is related directly to the moral philosophy. Prejudice means having a hostile attitude or behavior towards a person or a group of people based on negative preconceived notions about them. It is a cultural attitude and bias that rests on negative stereotypes about individuals or groups based on the cultural, religious, racial, or ethnic background. Meanwhile, discrimination is the active denial of desired goals from a category of persons which can be based on sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion, language, limited knowledge, social status or class. More recently, discrimination is also included those based on gender, age, marital status, pregnancy and physical disabilities.

When judging whether actions or attitudes constitute prejudiced and discriminatory behavior, there are various ethical questions for us to consider. These include such issues as whether the behaviors and opinions violate moral principles such as fairness, respect, equality for the dignity of others in the society, treating everyone as an equal and not taking advantage of an individual’s weaknesses or vulnerabilities. Discriminatory behaviors can be isolated, or performed by a single individual based on personal prejudices. Also, it can also be institutional, where it becomes the routine behaviors of an institutionalized group based on the prejudices of the group towards others. Likewise, discriminatory behavior can also be intentional, performed deliberately, or unintentional, where actions are performed unwittingly based on blind acceptance and adherence to prevalent stereotypes and prejudices or to institutionalized practice or corporate culture. In all of these cases, prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviors are considered illegal and fall under the category of unethical and immoral behavior.

 In light of such a common human condition, prejudicial attitudes most often lead directly to negative behaviors and it will caused to the tragedy for the human in this society. For example, prejudicial attitudes against the Jews in Germany resulted in hate campaigns, loss of rights and social inequality for Jews, many acts of discrimination and ultimately the Holocaust (the Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime). Other instances of discriminatory behavior based on prejudice that fly in the face of ethical behavior are the denial of housing rights to blacks and Hispanics in the United States, the underpayment of women in the workforce, the denial of employment to disabled individuals, the treatment of someone unfavorably because of his or her race or color and other such activities.Racism, prejudices, discrimination, and stereotypes were fueled by the practice of slavery.  The effects of slavery are still present in today's society.

Modern philosophical ethics uses two traditional approaches to determine the ethical character of behaviors. The first tradition, called teleological ethics, states that actions acquire their moral status from their consequences but have no intrinsic ethical value on their own. Based on a school of thought called Utilitarianism, actions are deemed ethical or unethical, or morally good or bad, according to the extent that they result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Thus behaviors that help people are viewed as ethical and actions that harm people are considered unethical. The second tradition is deontological ethics. This approach argues that actions have inherent moral value. That is, they are intrinsically right or wrong. Thus respecting the rights of others, telling the truth and being honest in the business are considered good or ethical, while lying, cheating, stealing, coercing and manipulating are thought of as bad or unethical. According to this approach, even if lying or cheating results in some good, the behavior can never be moral.

Practically, then, evaluating whether behavior is prejudiced or discriminatory involves considering both of these ethical approaches. Although they appear to conflict at the theoretical level, in practice they complement each other and cover an array of factors motivating human behavior.

Is Racism Human Nature or Learned Behavior?

Racism is a broad topic that can be generally described as the prejudicial of a group on the basis of its common physical characteristics sociologically associated with undesirable behaviors according to the accepted social norms and values of a majority. The physical traits which serve to catalyze racist phenomena include skin color and hair color as well as the shape of specific features including the head, eyes, nose and mouth.

The racism with which most are familiar is the skin color based racism that has permeated the United States in the second half of the 20th century along with such countries as South Africa. In the United States, the social and legal restrictions that blacks experienced first as slaves and later as freedmen until the civil rights era of the 1960s subjugated them to second-class citizens. Blacks were restricted and unable to rise socially or professionally. The poverty that has traditionally characterized the black community has led many in the white majority to view blacks as an inferior social element relegated to performing menial, low-paying jobs while living in the dangerous ghetto neighborhoods of inner cities. These social dynamics resulted in the widespread stereotypes of blacks as being naturally criminal and anti-social. 

The research surrounding the sociological and psychological bases for racism and racist tendencies in individuals is vast, seeking to understand whether racism occurs naturally in individuals or if it is a behavior learned through time and social interaction. Racism is a behavior which is learned from a young age and developed in response to variables that include, but are not limited to witnessing how people of different races relate to one another, how the media portray individuals of a specific race and, most important, how racial attitudes are expressed at home.

As a result, education is a most crucial key for the young generation to amend or get to learn the good behaviors and develop healthy perspectives towards the society. Peoples should believe that a good fruit which has a good seed with it could bear another good fruit. This theory is same goes to the society where peoples with good behaviors and attitudes among each others will create a harmony and peaceful homeland.    

Is abortion really so bad?

Throughout history, abortion has existed in some form or context.  The moral standards and implications however have changed with the passage of time.  Different groups have defined abortion in vastly different ways. Today, abortion is one of the most polarising and serious ethical issues in the society. Likewise, it is a very painful topic for women and men who find difficulties in facing the moral dilemma of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Many people believe that abortion is morally wrong and unethical based on the religion and culture practises of the society. They believe that once an ovum is fertilised, it should be allowed to develop and the child should be born. Meanwhile, others believe that in the first stages of the developing organism, it is alright to abort the pregnancy. In addition, most believe that abortion is morally right in special cases as rape and incest. From time to time, abortion advocates will argue that abortion is a necessary mechanism for ensuring that the world's population does not surge out of control. "Without abortion," they ask, "where would we put all of these extra kids?" Behind the debates, there are more fundamental ethical questions which aren’t always given the specific attention they deserve. A failure to openly discuss those values can obscure important discussions.
 

Is the foetus a person with human rights?

Much debate about the legality of abortion involves debating the legal status of the foetus. In this case, if the foetus is a person, anti-choice activists argue that abortion is murder and it should be illegal under the country law. Further, abortion advocates also quickly assert that embryos and foetuses aren't really human beings yet, therefore there is no existence of human rights for the foetus.

Does the woman own the ethical obligations to the foetus?

As women, if she consented to sex and/or didn’t properly use the contraception, then she knew that pregnancy might result. Pregnancy is means to have a new life growing inside. In the religion point of view, a new life is a precious gift from God. Whether the foetus is a person or not, it is arguable that a woman own ethical obligation to the foetus. 

Does the woman have ethical obligations to the father of the foetus?

Pregnancy can only occur with the participant of a man who is equally responsible for the existence of the foetus as the woman. In this case, should women give father any say in deciding whether the pregnancy is carried to term or abort? Basically, men own ethical obligation towards the pregnancy where the foetus is created by the men and women as well. Thus, fathers would be consulted whether abort or pregnancy carries to term. 

Does the abortion treat the foetus in an unethical and callous way?

Most people debates that ethics of abortion is focus on whether the foetus is a person. Even if the foetus is not a person, however, this doesn’t mean that it can’t have any moral standing in this case. Peoples object to abortion later in pregnancy is caused by the intuitively feel that the humanity towards the foetus which looks so much like a baby. Perhaps the ability to destroy or kill the foetus which looks like a baby is what we should strongly avoid to prevent this unethical and callous behaviour. 

Ethics concerns and the consequences of sexual activity

A lot of people tune out when they hear the words "sex" and "morality" used in the same sentence. The unprotected sexual activity brings permanent and lifelong health consequences, which is unwanted pregnancy. Thus, the questions towards the ethics of abortion must be included to the ethics of sex activity itself. 

Is it ethical to force a woman to carry pregnancy to term?

If legalized abortion is eliminated, thus the country law will be used as a tool to force women to carry pregnancy to term by using their body to develop the fetus into baby. Definitely, this must be an ideal of anti choice activists, but the concern is: would it be ethical to do so? Peoples may concern the ethical issue of not permitting women a selection or choice over being pregnant and it is not compatible with the justice and freedom in a democratic state. Even most people claim that foetus is a person who own rights and abortion is unethical, but it should not be prevented through the unethical means. 

Is it ethical to give birth to an unwanted child?

Some argue that bringing an unwanted child into the world is morally wrong which resulted in the children that are being abused and unloved. While anti-choice activists like to hype supposed examples of women having abortions for different reasons, it’s far more common that women have abortions because they feel unable to properly care for the child. Women who choose to abort when they cannot be good mothers are making the most ethical choice open to them. There are all sorts of circumstances that people point to as justification for their support of abortion. When it comes to abortion issue, there is no shortage of the question “What if...?” Just when it seems the injustice of abortion has been firmly established, you'll hear things like: "What if the woman was raped?", "What if she can't afford a child?", "What if the baby is deformed, and handicapped, diseased or disabled? or What if the mother is addicted to drug?". In this case, even if it were ethical to force women to carry pregnancies to term, it would not be ethical to force the birth of children who are unwanted and cannot be cared.

As a conclusion, in my point of view, abortion is a difficult issue of the society. There is no one approaches it lightly or makes a decision about whether to have an abortion lightly. Besides, abortion also touches upon a significant number of important and fundamental ethical questions which are the nature of person-hood, the nature of rights, human relationships, personal autonomy, and more. All of this means that it is very important that we take abortion seriously as an ethical issue concerned by our society.