Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
11
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by haoruli on July 19, 2019, 02:37:05 pm »
The topic that whether animals have rights can derive many questions. I think it is crucial to answer the question that should some animals have rights on the basis of complex thought? Personally, I think the answer is yes. Animals should have rights on the basis that they can think and feel pain. Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis that they can think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore, non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life and safety.

What is more, should animals be given rights on the basis that humans have rights? According to Darwin’s Origin of Species we have can know that human beings are related by common descent to all other animals. We suppose to consider animals as same lives as human beings that have rights.

In conclusion, generally animals have rights in the sense that human beings are animals.

Haoru Li
12
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by Xiaoyu Zhang on July 19, 2019, 11:00:40 am »
About the topic of animal rights, it is a social movement initiated by human beings to protect animals from being treated as possessions by human beings. The aim of this social trend of thought is not only to strive for the right of animals to be treated more kindly, but also to advocate that animals should enjoy the basic "rights" in spirit. For example, the right to freedom from torture is the same as human beings. In other words, animals should be treated as human beings, not just as human property or tools, whether at the legal or spiritual level.

Animal rights critics argue that animals can not be regarded as enjoying spiritual rights because they can not discuss social contracts or make moral judgments, can not take into account the rights of others, or even have no concept of rights at all. Just like what Ruth Cigman said in "Animals Do Not Have Rights", that we should consider the kinds of obligations we have towards a creature (human, animal), and the correlative rights to which he or she is entitled. The way I understand that idea is that they (those critics) think that because only human beings are responsible, thus it is only human beings that should enjoy their rights.

In my own view, I don't really think that all animal should have their own rights. For having rights, I think there should be the ability of rational thinking, therefore, I think animals with perception (self-knowing) should be treated differently from other primitive animals. Only animals with perception ,or stronger self-awareness, have control over their own lives and bodies, regardless of what humans see as their uses We cannot exclude all animals from the moral system and we do need to think about the real purpose of animal rights.
13
General Discussion / Re: 1st Online Comment (Due 12PM, Saturday, July 6th)
« Last post by unmusedsr on July 19, 2019, 10:08:26 am »
Quote from: bobbyfangxingjie on July 12, 2019, 10:18:17 pm
  On page 282-291, the author Jeffery Reiman talks about the folly of capital punishment. He believes that since capital punishment costs more than life in prison in America, by rationality, people should all choose life long imprisonment instead of death penalty. “Thus, his arguments goes, we must follow common sense, which teaches that the higher the cost of something, the fewer people would choose it.” (Abelson 282). However, although life imprisonment costs less than capital punishment, sometimes capital punishment are still needed for certain people.
    Recently, there was a famous news about a series killer in China, that aroused a lot of public concerns. A few years ago, he was put in prison because he **** a girl, who was abou ten years old. For that, he was put in prison for ten years. However, since he performed well inside the prison, he was released after five years. Then, a few weeks later, he **** and killed another young girl. After that, he confessed his crime to the police. If he did not do that, he would be put a life long imprisonment. However, since he confessed honestly, he received a reduce in his penalty. After several years, he came out from prison again and people think he would not do that kind of thing again. Then, surprisingly, he **** another girl and kill her.
         From this situation, we could find out that sometimes death penalty is needed for some people like this. They do not care about imprisonment, and they just want to do what they want, and death penalty is for this kind people.




I totally agree with your point on capital punishment. I have also followed this news for a long time and each time it makes me feel sad and upset. A lot of people are still debating about whether a country should have death penalty or not, in my own point of view, I think every country should have death penalty since life-long imprisonment does not have the same effect to the criminal as the capital punishment. As Jeffery Reiman stated in the reading, he thinks death penalty costs more than life-long imprisonment in the United States, thus people should all choose the life-long imprisonment instead. However, according to different national conditions, his claims may not be suitable in every case. Moreover, the Chinese government did apply similar approach as Reiman and even gave this criminal chance to behave himself several times, but the result was not expected. Thus, capital punishment is needed for people like this, especially the ones with psychological disorders. In this case, I think death penalty is the best solution. The inhumane behaviour disobeys any moral ethics in the world, if Mill is viewing in this case, based on the utilitarianism, his behaviour may satisfy his own need but disobeys the universal principle of moral standard.


shuran lin
14
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by Qi Wang on July 19, 2019, 12:42:59 am »
Quote from: Baitianyu on July 17, 2019, 10:52:58 am
Do animals have rights

The author in “immoral and moral uses of animals” argue about the moral questions about how human treat to animals. He asks questions such as can we do immoral things to animals or do animals have rights? He first tries to consider the problem from rationality and ability to communicate. One opinion is “rationality and the ability to communicate meaningfully with others are the most commonly mentioned differentiating characteristics.” Since human can think, talk and act rationally which animals can’t, animals should not be considered as human and have rights. Based on this argument, we can treat animals like nonliving objects. However, the argument also has some disadvantages. “The trouble is that not all human beings are rational.” People who have mental problems, brain-damage human and even three-year-old child all are irrational, and should we treat them not as human beings?

The second argument is based on Aristotle which is “Man’s tyranny over animals is natural because his superiority as an animal determines for him the dominant position in the natural scale of things.” Just like what write in the Bible, God approves us to take control all living animals. If we give up the dominance over animals, we will deny our nature. The problem with this argument is that we avoid slavery and child labor, not because they are unnatural, but because slaves and children have their own will. So, do animals have their own will and our act to them is immoral?

Baitianyu    Johnny Bai
I think some points are wrong in his arguments. Rationality and the ability to communicate meaningfully with others are the most commonly mentioned differentiating characteristics. You can’t apply this to determine whether animals have rights. First of all, this idea was conducted by people. We can’t apply this to all animals and make it a standard to judge other animals. Also, I think animals have rationality and they could communicate with their own spices. I have seen a lot of examples about animals which show they have rationality. For example, some hunters used to hunt goats for earning money. They forced goats to the cliff. At that time, hunters thought goats could not run away at all. However, goats made a very different decision. They chose to jump across the cliff. The old goats will sacrifice themselves as a place for other young goat to jump. They did not communicate with each other and soon make actions. The old goats just give the opportunities to young goats. Young goats have more abilities to make contributions to the species. From this story, we can figure out that goats are rational. Also, you can not deny their abilities to communicate at all. We just do not understand at all. It is same we could not understand them.
15
General Discussion / Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
« Last post by Zhongyue Cheng on July 18, 2019, 12:51:47 am »
Quote from: Xuehuan Zhu on July 12, 2019, 10:29:11 pm
in，Davis.A.j.Richards, SEX, DRUGS, AND PRIVACY; it mentioned that " To say, therefore, that people have a human right to use drugs is not to conclude that everyone should exercise this right." I think this is totally right and easily understand. it means that every citizen do have right to use drugs, but it does not mean, or strongly not suggest, that everyone should use this right to take drugs to experience this. many people when they begin to take drugs. it is hard for them to get rid of it. They will be addicted to drugs and destroying their lives.
in Qing dynasty, ancient China, government did bot forbidden opium. Almost Everyone take it, because they did not have correct recognition. Everyone, even officials take it, thus there is the bad example. Besides, there is no law restriction. Many people even do not want to take the drug. They are lured into taking it. Once they taken, they cannot resist the temptation, so they still taking it, then they get sick. Some people wanted to take drugs to comfort the disappointment in real life, so they takes it, this worsen the situation. Of course, this bad situation might because many England  wants to invade China, so they did that. Also, the main reason is that there is no law to forbid that. Thus, the situation is that people in Qing becomes sicker and sicker, many people even died, and the country becomes weaker. Thus, after that, Qing made a activity to destroy the opium. The story is remembered by others.

I agree with Davis' argument of the rights to use drugs too, but I still want to argue the feasibility of this moral standard. This discussion can dig back to the definition of rights. The question I have is that if a human right have negative effects toward human society, should that right still consider to be a right? Also, if the government agree with the idea of the right of drugs, should  the government make drugs legal? If not, what is the meaning of agreeing humans' right of using drugs?
In my opinion, the reality meaning of discussing human rights to protect human species and to protect people from hurting each other. We human cannot always realize the result of our action, therefore, we hurt others' feeling and even existence without realizing it. The meaning of human right is to prevent these unnecessary damages. Therefore, drug should be illegal and the discussion of the rights of using drug is not that important in determine its legality. The main problem of drugs is illusion. After taking drugs, people lose their ability to control themselves. Many criminals commit crime without intention since they are high. Some people might sat that most drug users are not criminals, but I believe that it is too late to prohibit drug after it becomes the source of criminal.
16
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by Zhongyue Cheng on July 18, 2019, 12:26:38 am »
Quote from: Baitianyu on July 17, 2019, 10:52:58 am
Do animals have rights

The author in “immoral and moral uses of animals” argue about the moral questions about how human treat to animals. He asks questions such as can we do immoral things to animals or do animals have rights? He first tries to consider the problem from rationality and ability to communicate. One opinion is “rationality and the ability to communicate meaningfully with others are the most commonly mentioned differentiating characteristics.” Since human can think, talk and act rationally which animals can’t, animals should not be considered as human and have rights. Based on this argument, we can treat animals like nonliving objects. However, the argument also has some disadvantages. “The trouble is that not all human beings are rational.” People who have mental problems, brain-damage human and even three-year-old child all are irrational, and should we treat them not as human beings?

The second argument is based on Aristotle which is “Man’s tyranny over animals is natural because his superiority as an animal determines for him the dominant position in the natural scale of things.” Just like what write in the Bible, God approves us to take control all living animals. If we give up the dominance over animals, we will deny our nature. The problem with this argument is that we avoid slavery and child labor, not because they are unnatural, but because slaves and children have their own will. So, do animals have their own will and our act to them is immoral?

Baitianyu    Johnny Bai

I am replying to the argument Johnny made on animal rights. According to Johnny's reply, "Since human can think, talk and act rationally which animals can’t, animals should not be considered as human and have rights." However, I want to argue whether human is the only individual that have rights in the world. The definition of right, according to the dictionary, is the qualities that together constitute the idea of moral approval. What Johnny imply in the reply is that human is the only being which can have rights. On one hand, I will agree that only human have the ability of thinking and reasoning, therefore, only human can realize the idea of rights. I also agree that human created the idea of rights, and only human is able to define the word "right". However, depending on these consideration, once human want to give animal rights, animal can also be considered to have rights.
Many people have pets and established a special relationship with animals. Due to sympathy (which only human can have), this kind of relationship is not only with their pets, but with many other animals. Protecting animals is protecting human emotion. This is one of the basic reasons why animal should have rights.
17
General Discussion / Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
« Last post by yeqiyang on July 17, 2019, 09:36:19 pm »
Quote from: Lingxiu Ji on July 11, 2019, 08:19:32 pm
“A U.S. tourist, driving through a central American country ruled by a cruel dictator, stops in a village where twenty rebellious peasants are lined up against a wall, facing a firing squad.  The commanding officer approached the tourist and offers to spare nineteen of the rebels if the tourist takes the officer’s revolver and shoots one of the rebels. Compared to the dilemma facing the pilot of the spaceship in “The Cold Equations,” is the tourist’s moral dilemma more, less or equally difficult to resolve morally? Defend your position as you compare the two situations.”

------ p.188 Ethics for Modern Life, Raziel Friquegnon



The question is whether a U.S. tourist will go and execute one of the rebels in a nation of the dictator in Central America in order to save the other nineteen. First, if the tourist is following Divine command. Majority of the Americans are Christians. The Christian religion teaches people that they should not kill people. So if the tourist is strictly following the Divine command, he will not kill the man and save the other 19. However, a single U.S. tourist going to central American, according to my stereotype, is more likely to come from a rather liberal state, and holds liberal, non-religious view when making their act.

If the tourist is a government official or a businessman, he or she might follow the Utilitarianism, believing that he or she should do the best for the greatest number. If he wants to the best for the greatest number of Americans, he will shoot one and save the others. American’s traditional value is liberal and democratic, thus opposing any authoritarian states (with exceptions of the cases that there are great benefits to be gained). A state that is led by a dictator is by nature U.S.’s enemy and assuming the enemy of an enemy is a friend because the tourist doesn’t have enough time to investigate the reason those 20 people are rebelling for, the people rebelling is American’s friends. And if the tourist shoots one of the rebels and saves the other, that means saving 19 allies of America, who might fight for freedom around the world and for American’s interests. However, the tourist needs to take the credibility of the commanding officer in an authoritarian nation. If he shoots the man and the commanding officer ordered his firing squad to keep shooting. That means that he didn’t save anyone, plus that he’s now killed one himself. In this case, the cost outweighs the benefits. He also needs to consider the identity of those twenty rebels. If one of them is the head of the rebel, he should, when following utilitarianism, shoot one of the other to save him.

If the tourist is following Kant’s duty theory. He should not shoot the man and save the others. The act of killing something is not going to pass CI. If killing something is normalized and universalized, then the world will be in a state of suffering, and chaos. So even though the consequence of him or her killing one is good, he can not do that based on his goodwill, under Kant’s duty theory.

I agree with the idea of utilitarian ethics since we have to secure our own lives then we may pursue scoring others' lives. Since we ar asked to shoot some rebellions, those people are dead even we refuse to do so since they have been arrested by the cruel dictator. The only way to pursue the greatest kind is to follow the order of the dictator and manage to acquire his trust. We may rescue others only by following that way. Thus, shooting is not immoral
18
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by yeqiyang on July 17, 2019, 09:29:59 pm »
I agree with the opinion that the right of animal and development of human should be both considered and evaluated. Nowadays, since human may come up with a way to preserve animals' right and get the necessary nutrition from animal at the same time, there could be the coexist of both ideas.
19
General Discussion / Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
« Last post by yeqiyang on July 17, 2019, 09:26:18 pm »
I don't believe that there will be any black market of meat will appear cause meat is such an object could be easily acquired thus will not be any rapid change in the price which will lead to the black market.
20
General Discussion / Re: Welcome to CreateaForum.com
« Last post by yeqiyang on July 17, 2019, 09:23:39 pm »
I agree with this idea of equality with everyone. The value of lives cannot be calculated by the number or age. A elder man has equal weight with 5 young men. Sacrificing one elder for 5 young men is not acceptable.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7