Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sustainability and lifestyle choices essay
Sustainability and lifestyle choices essay
Sustainability and lifestyle choices essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sustainability and lifestyle choices essay
Ms. Harrison run into little Timmy- her neighbor, seven years old- one Saturday morning at the store wearing her brand new fur coat. Little Timmy, surprised by the size of the thing asked Ms. Harrison what that was. She said it was her very expensive coat that she bought the other day hoping that little Timmy was going to admire her good taste in fashion. When little Timmy asked what was that made from, she replied “fur” hoping that he was not going to be able to put the pieces together, but when little Timmy asked “Fur, from who? How was it taken off?” Ms. Harrison could do nothing else but turn away in shame and head home.
“A 1998 investigation by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) exposed the international fur industry’s ugly secret: the widespread slaughter of companion animals- domestic dogs an cats- for the manufacture of clothing, accessories, and trinkets.” (www.infurmation.com/)
The world we live in today has become into something that worries people and societies from all around the world, but that unfortunately seems to be overwhelming and people cannot do anything about it. The main questions about the killing of animals for fur are: Who do we blame for this practice? How has it affected the world since its beginning? Can we make it stop? How? Different species of animals are being killed for their fur, and this is to satisfy the demand of a selected group of people from the community, not all of them. I will be discussing how much does this practice contrast with the Utilitarian principles and if the outcome of it is justified, and try to motivate the reader to get involved in the eradication or at least to raise a concern about this “slaughter” based on the results of this justification.
Utilitarian t...
... middle of paper ...
...t only to the animals involved, but also to lots of people around the world who are stressed because of this. Killing animals for food is practically inevitable because humans need to eat, but killing them for fur is a luxury at expense of the animal’s lives. Whether the job should be eradicated or not is a complicated topic since it should- ought- to be eliminated since it is going to benefit more sentient beings around the world, but reality is that even though it has reduced over the last century- because of synthetic fur among other reasons- it is still taking place and it is still as barbarian as it was when it first started. There is still hope that one day this will stop, but for now the only thing we can do is get involved and show we care, and refuse to buy fur and try to expand this mentality among the people we know and the ones we meet during our lives.
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
One objection Norcross states in his essay is that “perhaps most consumers are unaware of the treatment of animals, before they appear in neatly wrapped packages on supermarket s...
Many people believe that animal cruelty is an acceptable consequence if done for scientific purposes or to sustain human economy. Just imagine yourself being a monkey, for a shampoo testing organization, being forced to take chemicals down your throat to see its effect, and if you didn’t die during this process, you would’ve been killed and dissected anyway to see what organs have been affected. All this needs to be done for what purpose? To make sure that someone could have the really needed necessity of having another great, lovely new shampoo that smells exactly like all the others in the market, just wonderful.
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
Every year over 100 million animals die in the US; the cause for these deaths, animal testing. This injustice to animals involves testing products such as medical drugs or makeup, on poor imprisoned animals that don’t have the ability to stand for their own rights as most of us do. Animals used for testing are given products that may result in burning, poisoning, or death. These animals are forced to live in confined spaces where they wait until the next horrible experiment. They are, tortured beyond imagination as they are sometimes even cut open while they are alive (know as vivisection), either with expired analgesics or even without them.
Miss Brill is without any relatives or close friends. She has no acquaintances to converse with. Therefore, she treats her fur as if it were a pet. Her fur is a “dear little thing” (98) with eyes and a tail. She sometimes feels like “stroking” it (98).
Animals are precious, loving, and sweet creatures but many are having their lives cut short. Did you know that 7.6 million animals enter shelters every year? Of those animals, thirty one percent of dogs are euthanized and forty one percent of cats are euthanized. If you do the math, that is 2.4 million dogs and 3.1 million cats. Why are we doing this to our animals? They're living creatures just like us, even if they can't tell us. As you read this paper, you'll learn about what euthanization is, learn the reasons for shelters killing our furry friends, and get an inside look at the terrible practice of euthanization.
The strongest argument against the dog meat industry centers on the treatment of the dogs that are often killed by ?beating, strangling, [and] boiling? instead of more humane methods such as electrocution. Unnecessary cruelty against animals is universally considered wrong, and is in many cases illegal, and that is what makes this argument effective. Saletan addresses this argument logically, with the simple fact that in the interest of humane treatment of dogs ?South Korean lawmakers are proposing to legalize, license, and regulate the industry.? This simple fact exposes a fundamental hypocrisy within the opposing viewpoint. Saletan argues that it is the same activists who base their arguments on ending cruelty against dogs who are trying to keep new, more humane methods from being adopted. The activists condemn and deplore cruel ...
There was a combination of different literature found that easily pertains to the issue addressed in this paper. This broadly classified literature includes the history and background of PETA’s organization, an analysis of the use of celebrity icons in the anti-fur campaign and the different perspectives and criticism depicted in their messages.
The ugly truth is that animals are dying at the hands of their owners everyday, some in very violent ways that can be avoidable given the right solution. Slaughterhouses, puppy mills, dog fighting, and so on, are just a few examples of how animals are being treated badly by people. Animal cruelty is a form of violence which, un...
Imagine being beaten to near death and being painfully skinned alive. This scenario seems as if it would only happen in a horror film, but in reality it occurs on a daily basis. Looking at a fur coat through a store window or in a glossy magazine one may not realize that animals were beaten, electrocuted, crammed in filthy wire cages, or even hanged just to produce a simple fur coat. Every year millions of animals are treated wrongly and even killed for the fur on their backs. Society may think twice about wearing the corpse of an animal when one knows what really happens in the name of fashion. An immeasurable amount of suffering went into every fur trimmed jacket, leather belt, or wool sweater hanging in ones closet. To eradicate the unnecessary suffering of animals for fashion, wearing fur must be made illegal.
Today, the fashion industry is pumping out thousands of fur coats for prospective buyers. The attempt of masking the true price of retrieving that fur by glamorizing coats is beyond most buyer’s attention. Some people know that animals go through pain when their fur is taken for the purpose of fashion, but most people do not understand the extent of the mutilation they go through. To be sure the fur is fresh and neat, certain animals are sometimes skinned alive. Fur farming is not only inhumane, but it also has a negative effect on nature. Fur farming is bad for the environment, brutal to animals and the animals are also inhumanely killed. According to psychological theory, the humanistic view claims that every person has good in them. However, this act of murdering innocence seems to prove otherwise.
It is shown that lawmakers do not view animal abuse as seriously as they possibly should, perhaps because animal cruelty is so common and is sometimes even viewed as entertainment. There are common cases of animal abuse in everyday life, such as: hunting, poaching, factory farming, rodeos, and the industries that offer authentic fur, leather, feathers, and wool. The industries that use authentic animal hide have no excuse for not finding a suitable substitute. Honestly, there is no reason why the skin of an animal is to be used in clothing other than the fact that it is considered “fasion.” There are also cases of animal abuse that are celebrated as a cherished tradition.
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we