Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on Animal rights
The island of dr. moreau- essay
An essay on Animal rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on Animal rights
People have free will. People have the ability to choose right from wrong. With this responsibility people need to think about the outcome of actions and how it will affect society.
In The island of Dr. Moreau, Dr. Moreau and his friend Montgomery try to turn animals into humans. When Dr. Moreau decided to do this he did not considered the possible results. This is made clear in the book because why would a person in their right mind want to make something that could potentially kill them? On page 316 Dr. Moreau says, "For 17 years I have been striving to create a... some measure of refinement in the human species you see. And it is here, on this very island, that I sir, have found the very essence of the Devil." He also said, "the creatures I had seen were not men, had never been men. They were animals - humanised animals - triumphs of vivisection." These quotes are saying that he knows he has done wrong. After 17 years of torturing animals Dr. Moreau may have realized that what he has been doing is playing into the tricks of the devil. The devil is trying to destroy God’s creation and turn it into genetically made mutated humans. On page 156
…show more content…
Montgomery says, "animal rights activists drove him out of the States. It got so bad you couldn't cage a rat without reading him his rights.” Animals do not have rights, they do not vote, marry, nor pay bills. The New York Times says, "if they had such rights, they would, among other things, have to be held accountable for killing or maiming fellow animals in the wilds.” In 1988 a court case in Canada said, “ When this case was heard, a woman had to get approval from the therapeutic abortion committee of an approved hospital before she could get an abortion. Abortions done without this approval were illegal. Three doctors, including Dr. Morgentaler, set up a clinic to perform abortions for women who did not have the necessary approval and the doctors were criminally charged. People argued that the abortion laws violated a woman’s right to security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter." The supreme court of Canada decided that it was unconstitutional to take the life of a human being because abortion increases the health risk of women. Part of society approved of this choice, while the other part did not. Why is the society as earlier quoted "reading a rat his rights,” while the government is trying to decide if a little innocent baby has rights?
In a time with so much technical advancements, like ultrasound, people are still able to justify abortion by claiming it is not a human being. This has gone too far. Page 474 quotes, "indurated was I at that time to the abomination of the place, that I heard without a touch of emotion the puma victim begin another day of torture." When you create something that is against natural law, His law, and put innocent people or animals into danger it's gone too far. Animals will never be humans. Animals and humans are two different distinct creatures. While similar in some ways very uniquely different in others. The human has an immortal soul while animals do
not. Matthew 12:36 says "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak." This bible verse says all the things in life they have done to their brothers and sisters will be judged at the right hand of the father. The Lord God determines right from wrong. God has allowed his people to have free will since the beginning of time and will until the very last human on earth. God has been since the beginning of time and will to the end of time. This is why God determines right from wrong. The government makes laws, and yes they determine right from wrong on earth, but congressmen, senators, the President and other people of high authority are normal people. They are sinners, they have made wrong choices before and this is why God holds the ultimate judgment. Second Timothy 2:26 says "and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will." The book does not mention a specific reason why Dr. Moreau and Montgomery wanted to turn animals into humans. They may have done this just because they can or because they had nothing better to do. In life things will be legal but not the right thing to do. In The Island of Dr. Moreau, it was not made clear if changing animals into humans was legal or illegal. Either way, is it the right thing to do? Is changing a creature God made to find its own food, live outside in nature, and to roam the land seem against natural law? “Look at the birds in the sky they do not sow or reap… yet your father in heaven feeds them. Are you not more important than them?” Matthew 6:26. In a society, if people accept taking a wonderfully made creature and turning it into something that could cause harm on people, what will people accept next? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right as Dr. Moreau and Montgomery came to understand. Society is responsible for making the right decisions. The government was created to uphold the laws of the Lord and his land. However, the government is not always working to uphold the law of the land. Many have upheld the laws while others have strayed from the land of the free, where God is at the center, the core! For example, on January 16, 2013 President Obama proposes a ban on certain types of guns. CBS News says, "Congress passed the original assault weapons ban in 1994, thus imposing a 10-year ban on 19 types of military style assault weapons including semi-automatic rifles and pistols like AK-47s and Uzis" this is saying Mr. Obama wants to ban certain types of guns but America's constitutional Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Guns can help protect people. People have abused this luxury which has resulted in murders by way of school shootings and suicide. The deaths by guns is due to people's choice to take evil actions into their own hands regardless of the laws. Criminals will always find a way to kill. Will the government outlaw knives next? People in today's society are now confused on what love and marriage is. Who should be allowed to marry who? Our government just redefined marriage. Marriage which was created and still is today a Sacrament to be made in the church. It is a promise to God that male and female would work for the greater good to work to get their spouse to heaven and bear children naturally for His greater glory. The government might call it marriage, however it is not and never will be in God's eyes. Rather it is living in great mortal sin. In Leviticus 20:13 it says, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." God warns about same- sex marriage. When people turn to earthly leaders the end decision may be different. NCLS says, "before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Oct. 6, 2014, declining to hear cases on same-sex marriage, 31 states had either constitutional or statutory provisions that explicitly defined marriage as between a man and a woman and just 19 states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex marriage.” On June 26, 2015 the U.S supreme court ruled same sex marriage is legal in the United States. Choices? Right from wrong? God versus Government? Good versus evil? Humans will always have to fight the internal will of the soul in order to make choices.
The awakening is plenty of characters that describe in a very loyal way the society of the nineteenth century in America. Among the most important ones there are Edna Pontellier, Léonce Pontellier, Madame Lebrun, Robert Lebrun, Victor Lebrun, Alcée Arobin, Adéle Ratignolle and Mademoiselle Reisz.
Madame Defarge tries to kill and hurt everyone who opposes her in Tale of Two Cities. Her only hobby is knitting, and she knits as a way to show anger and bring fear to her enemies. She knits a list of people who die in the revolution. The essay shows how Madame Defarge has motives for her killings, her allies, and if the behavior is justified.
“The truth is that nothing can give us what we think we want, and ordinarily think we have. We cannot be morally responsible, in the absolute, buck-stopping way in which we often unreflectively think we are. We cannot have "strong" free will of the kind that we would need to have, in order to be morally responsible in this way” (…).
...t it is immoral. I also see that it may not be immoral for a woman to abort if she has made the most effort to avoid pregnancy using contraceptives. However, as Thompson states, I think in this situation a mother “ought” not to have an abortion. A fetus should have the right to life, however the mother should also have the right to determine how to use her own body. So I too find it difficult to determine a solid stance on this issue. I’ve always believe that a fetus is a person, but I’ve also always struggled to discern when it is that the fetus becomes a person. Regardless of whatever science can prove or not regarding when a fetus is a person or however much argumentation is done regarding the permissibility of abortion, this topic will forever be surrounded by debate. I don’t believe there will ever a unanimous opinion on whether or not abortion is moral.
The criterion for personhood is widely accepted to consist of consciousness (ability to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivation, communication and self-awareness. When Mary Anne Warren states her ideas on this topic she says that it is not imperative that a person meet all of these requirements, the first two would be sufficient. We can be led to believe then that not all human beings will be considered persons. When we apply this criterion to the human beings around us, it’s obvious that most of us are part of the moral community. Although when this criterion is applied to fetuses, they are merely genetic human beings. Fetuses, because they are genetically human, are not included in the moral community and therefore it is not necessary to treat them as if they have moral rights. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.187). This idea is true because being in the moral community goes hand in hand w...
People should benefit from freedom, equality and justice. Absolute freedom is sometimes very dangerous and may destroy the basic principles of the society. A lot of people believe that freedom means doing whatever you want, whenever you want.
Mary Anne Warren’s “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” describes her justification that abortion is not a fundamentally wrong action for a mother to undertake. By forming a distinction between being genetically human and being a fully developed “person” and member of the “moral community” that encompasses humanity, Warren argues that it must be proven that fetuses are human beings in the morally relevant sense in order for their termination to be considered morally wrong. Warren’s rationale of defining moral personhood as showcasing a combination of five qualities such as “consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity of communication, and self-awareness” forms the basis of her argument that a fetus displays none of these elements that would justify its classification as a person and member of the morally relevant community (Timmons 386).
In A Defense of Abortion (Cahn and Markie), Judith Thomson presents an argument that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is considered to be a person. Her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, abortion is wrong. The pro-abortion adopts the opposite view: namely, that a fetus is not a person and is thus not entitled to the rights of people and so killing it couldn’t possibly be wrong.
One of the biggest issue of abortion goes back to the controversial question of when human life actually begins. Many people will often argue that a fetus is a living being from the moment of conception and feel that it deserves the same legal protections as an adult, therefore making it immoral to kill it. Just like in our court system, we would not put an innocent person on death penalty. The fetus has done nothing wrong and has the right to live. As the editor of Christianity Today wrote, "abortion is one of those monumental issues of justice that comes along once in a lifetime. It is violence against children, a hideous act of poisoning or dismembering tiny bodies, then dumping them in a landfill or garbage disposal." On the other hand, those who are for abortion say that a fetus is only a "potential human being." The advocates for legal abortions want the mother to choose whether she keeps the baby or kills it, and the rights of a mother supersede the rights of a baby. John M. Sw...
Singer first points out that the different opinions on abortion come from the debate on when a human life actually begins. He formulates the common argument against abortion as follows: it is wrong to kill an innocent human being; a human fetus is an innocent human being; therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus. It is because killing a human being is undoubtedly wrong and immoral that the opposition instead attempts to deny the second part of the argument “a human fetus is an innocent human being”. By doing so, critics argue that the fetus does not have the status of a human being. This debate results in focusing on whether, or when, the fetus can be considered a human being, and therefore given the same rights against being killed as another human being. Singer however claims that it is difficult to find a moral dividing line between a fetus and a human being because the development of the human egg to a child is gradual. To prove his point, he describes four commonly proposed moral lines (birth, viability, quickening, and consciousness), which he then denies with strong arguments.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic priest and philosopher, a fetus is not a human being because it does not possess language or articulated thought - one of the defining aspects of human nature (qtd. in Eco 51). Theoretically speaking, a fetus is not a human until it can think and talk. With that being clarified, the rest of the essay will first include arguments for, and then arguments against, abortion. Karen Pazol, et al.
For example, a mother who opts to abort lives a life full of misery and guilt following her unethical action. The same issue is explored by Kant, where he argues that frequent abortions would make the human race extinct. Therefore, not irrational or good to the society. Lastly, they argue that abortion denies the fetus the right to life which is granted by the Human Rights Commission. Judith Thomson argument that a human embryo is a person indicates that he or she has the right to life, and no one has a right to terminate it (Baird & Stuart, 78). Therefore, abortion is unacceptable, irrational and immoral action to
...nturies. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.
Abortion “is an issue that raises questions about life and death, about what a person is and when one becomes a person, about the meaning of life, about the rights of women, and about the duties of men”(Velasquez 485). Abortion is an unresolved ethical issue that has been in doubt for many years because one can argue that you are killing an innocent person/fetus but many argue that is not person because they don’t have a conscious or the characteristics that defines a “person”. John Stuart Mill in a way justifies abortion, Mill is known to be openly speak about women’s rights and about human rights. Although, it might be immortal to end someone’s life one might argued that the individual has the right to choose and have the option. But in
This world has turned into a place where people are required to take full responsibility for their actions and words. Often we do this informally, via moral judgment or if not through legal judgment. In other words we become morally responsible, deserving praise, blame, reward or punishment for an act or omission based upon one’s moral obligations, thus contradicting the concept of free will. Main viewpoints on moral responsibility interact with the following three, constructed by human action: determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism. A philosopher once said “Just as we separated the concept ‘free’ from the concept of ‘will’ in order to better understand ‘free will,’ so we need to separate ‘moral’ and responsibility."