IELTS Writing Task 2: 'animal testing' essay - ielts …
More stories of kind mentoring in a new home come courtesy of another elephant rescue site, this one in Kenya, where orphans are raised to be reintroduced as adults into the wild. This is a big adjustment, not often attempted for animals who have lived for some length of time in a captive or domesticated setting, but the new releases are helped by older elephants who have gone through the same thing themselves (especially important in welcoming them into a herd that is not their blood kin). In a in , head keeper Joseph Sauni recounts how an adventurous little one named Irima ran away to try out his independence early. After a few days, a trumpety clamor was heard at the gate. “Irima must have told the group that he still needed his milk and orphan family and wanted to go back,” says Sauni, so Edo, a graduate of the center, walked Irima home. “The keepers opened the gate, and Edo escorted Irima all the way back to the stockades. Edo drank some water from the well, ate some food, and took off again. Mission accomplished.”
How to Write an Essay (with Pictures) - wikiHow
A court in 1987 concluded that the LD50 studies in animals were "grosslyinadequate" according to the standards in the early 1950's: the Armyfound that all mice died at 100 mg/kg and no mice died at 12 mg/kg, butthe Army performed no further animal experiments. Further, before the judgeapproved the settlement in 1955, the state's attorney had an meeting with the judge, at which the attorney falsely represented that sourceof the drug was the Army Medical Corps, to give the impression that theexperiment was therapeutic. The judge then required that the settlementbe increased from $ 15,000 to $ 18,000.
The Club Taurino of London caters for the depraved tastes of the aficionado-voyeur, who feels the psychological need to watch killing. I offer an argument in moral philosophy which I've called, for convenience, The Argument from The Baboon and Bull Killing Club. Defenders of bullfighting very often claim that watching bullfighting is justifiable because the kind of experience available to the spectators outweighs the suffering of the animals. (Many defenders of bullfighting argue - or simply assume - that animals can't suffer, as in the case of those who maintain that 'animals have no souls.' These individuals are mentioned in 'Into the Arena.') Alexander Fiske-Harrison and A A Gill believe that killing an animal - a bull and a baboon in their case - is justified on account of the kind of experience which they gained. Presumably, many, many other people would also have similar experiential benefits if they too killed an animal? If their example were imitated, and many, many animals were killed for the sake of the experience (provided it were legal in the country) would they approve or disapprove? I believe, of course, that their whim, craving, need, whatever it may be, is far from harmless and not to be imitated. In the case of killing for these reasons, and watching killing as a spectator, the moral arguments against are decisive, it seems to me. It would be morally wrong to set up a Club for killers of animals, but clubs such as the Club Taurino of London, which cater for spectators of killing and which foster and encourage public killing of animals, are morally unjustifiable too.
Tuskegee syphilis experiment - Wikipedia
If you shoot an animal, you may expect it to make whimpering noises.... That any animal, and especially one weighing 3 tons, should lie down and sob her heart out in pure emotional frustration is something else again. It almost looks as if, despite all that we like to believe, we humans are not the only creatures that possess what we call emotions and higher feelings. In fact, if we insist upon making a distinction between ourselves and other animals in this respect, we will then have to provide a special niche for the Abu.
Bullfighting: arguments against and action against
Some religions teach that man is superior to animals and, by extension, animals do not have feeling. Some cultures do not recognise animals as thinking, feeling entities, for example the Chinese term for animal equates to "moving thing" and animals in food markets are treated as though they are no more than unfeeling, moving, vocalising vegetables. Politicians and those opposed to "animal rights" believe that according animals emotions would accord them rights (possibly rights equal to humans), changing the whole human/animal relationship and making pet-keeping, farming, hunting and experimentation unacceptable (many people already argue that hunting and experimentation are unacceptable on grounds of unnecessary cruelty). They argue that humans would be reduced to animal status with all that entails: culling, enforced sterilisation, selective breeding etc and pretty soon the word "Nazi" gets bandied about (ironically Hitler banned hunting).
Personal Identity | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Though based on nearly opposite standards for how to value living beings, both these approaches basically annihilate human equality as a special ideal, that self-evident truth that somehow in all times and places has been shockingly hard to defend. Hence valiant crusaders against assaults on this front, such as bioethicist Wesley J. Smith (author of titled after Newkirk’s statement), smell danger in any discussion of animal sentience and emotion. Think of the beautiful stark simplicity of the “I Am a Man” banners carried in the civil rights marches; what if, instead, they said “I Am an Organism,” whose rights are either contingent or unenforceable? This is the moral universe that people suspicious of animal advocacy fear.