Mission Statement: Demonstrate leadership in wildlife conservation and animal welfare. Provide a broad audience with outstanding and unique educational opportunitiesthat lead to the appreciation and stewardship of nature. Inspire our community with engaging, meaningful and memorable experiences. Provide innovative zoological facilities that contribute to the region’s economic vitality and demonstrate organizational excellenceconsistent with a commitment to outstanding service, progressive resource management and environmental leadership.
The Detroit Zoo is committed to saving and helping animals. They care about the welfare of animals and they want to provide excellence in showing outstanding living conditions for animals within their zoo.
CAWC was launched on the 26th April 1999 and was set up to conduct independent studies into the welfare, care and treatment of companion animals and their role within society. The Council offers specialist advice, especially to organisations, institutions and Government primarily by publishing the results of their studies.
GEARI is a non-profit, educational group dedicated to assisting you in your search for animal rights related information as well as to raising awareness to the many issues affecting other-than human animals, the environment and human health. We are dedicated to providing you with relevant, timely, and authoritative animal rights related information. We seek to be your reference source and starting point for animal rights related information and research.
"For more than 45 years, WWF has been protecting the future of nature. The world’s leading conservation organization, WWF works in 100 countries and is supported by 1.2 million members in the United States and close to 5 million globally. WWF's unique way of working combines global reach with a foundation in science, involves action at every level from local to global, and ensures the delivery of innovative solutions that meet the needs of both people and nature"
As part of its ongoing conservation efforts, the San Diego Zoo constructed the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center for Conservation Research using green practices and materials. The project earned the LEED Silver Certification by the U.S. Green Building Council.
In 1889, The Smithsonian National Zoo was founded and is located Northwest, Washington, D.C. In the early 1960s, the Zoo turned its attention to breeding and studying threatened and endangered species. In 1965, the zoological research division was created to study the reproduction,behavior, and ecology of zoo species, and learn how best to meet the needs of animals. The Smithsonian National Zoo's mission to provide leadership in animal care and animal education which are vital to maintain Earth's biological diversity.
Created by Graeme Phipps, this blog is dedicated to the study of animals in the wild in hopes that zoos and other wildlife captivities will make their environments more like the natural environment of the animals to ensure that the animals are the most natural as possible.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 2 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world. PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Companion Animal Overpopulation
It is a sad fact of life in our society that millions of “surplus” cats, dogs and other domesticated animals have no place to call home. The kennels and cages of America’s animal shelters are filled to capacity with these abandoned, lost and unwanted creatures. New strays and discarded family companions arrive continuously, yet there is not nearly enough space for them all so their stay must be short as they await an uncertain fate.
Founded in 1987, CARE is a non profit, all voulenteer, animal rescue organization. They take owner-relinquished, abandoned, abused, and neglected kittens, puppies, cats and dogs that would otherwise face uncertain futures. The animals are then taken into foster homes where they recive quality medical care, nutrition, and love until then placed into a permanent, pre-screened home.
Like many other Philadelphia landmarks and institutions, the Philadelphia Zoo is an American first. The charter establishing the Zoological Society of Philadelphia was approved and signed on March 21, 1859. Due to the Civil War, however, it was another 15 years before America's first zoo was ready to open.
In its first year of operation, the Philadelphia Zoo had 813 animals and received well over 228,000 visitors. Today, the Zoo has more than 1,300 rare and endangered animals, and its attendance is approximately 1.1 million visitors a year.
The Associated Humane Societies, founded in 1906, is the largest animal sheltering system in New Jersey. We comprise three shelters located in Newark, Forked River, and Tinton Falls . The Society is a not for profit organization, and Popcorn Park is also a federally licensed zoo. The Society prides itself on our devotion to the thousands of animals that we care for annually and the chance for a better life we offer them.
AAPN aims to develop intra-regional co-operation and provide an entry point for enquiries from other regions. It is a loose, cost-effective network for exchanging information and ideas and general mutual support. Issues include but are not limited to: animal welfare, animal rights, vegetarian and vegan concerns, humane education, wildlife habitat conservation, traditional medicine, zoos, safari parks, circuses, the fur trade, elephants, bears, tigers, wolves, dogs, cats, etc.
The Captive Wild Animal Protection Campaign was formed by the Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition in 2002 for the purpose ofaddressing the issues surrounding the growing US trade in captive wildlife. The Captive Wild Animal Protection Campaign envisions a world where wild animals are not kept as pets or used for entertainment or commercial purposes, and live free from commercial exploitation.
North Shore Animal League America, headquartered in Port Washington, NY, is the largest no-kill animal rescue and adoption organization in the world. Since 1944, The Animal League's mission has been saving the lives of pets through adoption, rescue, spay/neuter and advocacy initiatives. Evey year, the Animal League reaches across the country to rescue, nurture and adopt approximately 20,000 pets into happy loving homes. To date, the Animal League has placed close to 1 million puppies, kittens, cats and dogs into carefully screened homes. This League is well known throughout the region for having an extreme dedication to the well being of companion animals. It was started by a small group of animal lovers who had set up shop in their garage, and slowly branched out into an organization that has helped animals through countless situations, including hurricane Katrina. Even in their early years of development the League had their "no-kill" policy, even for the most "undesirable" (to some) of patients. Their role is animal preservation has made quite a differnece, and without them, i'm not sure who would help the animals that everyone else has given up on.
The American Anti-vivisection Society aims to end all experimentation on animals and also to end other forms of cruelty. Their goal is to legally and effectively end the use of animals in science through education, advocacy, and the development of alternative methods to animal use.
The ASPCA's mission is “to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States.” The ASPCA rescues animals from abuse, helps shelters across America, and works to pass laws encouraging people to be humane to animals.
Northwest Animal Companions (NAC) is a 501c(3) non-profit organization whose mission is to provide foster care, low-cost spay and neuter, and adoptions for homeless, abandoned, and abused companion animals in a no-kill sanctuary setting.
The Animal Liberation organization is located in South Australia and is devoted towards explaining what organizations in which animals are kept are conducive towards their health and safety, as well as many other controversial animal issues. They explain how some zoos are great for animals, but only due to the fact that they are free range zoos with plenty of space. Many zoos are not and never will be free range and are poor areas for an animal to live. They also explain how animals are never kept in good condition in a business such as a circus since they are always traveling.
Born Free takes action worldwide to protect threatened species and stop individual animal suffering. Born Free believes wildlife belongs in the wild and works to phase out zoos.
The Companion Animal Parasite Council (CAPC) is an independent council of veterinarians and other animal health care professionals established to create guidelines for the optimal control of internal and external parasites that threaten the health of pets and people. Initially convened in 2002, CAPC was formed with the express purpose of changing the way veterinary professionals and pet owners approach parasite management.
Founded by President Deborah Howard in 1992, Companion Animal Protection Society (CAPS) is the only national nonprofit organization dedicated exclusively to protecting companion animals from cruelty in pet shops and puppy mills. CAPS actively addresses the abuse and suffering of pet shop and puppy mill dogs through investigations, education, media relations, legislative involvement, puppy mill dog rescues, consumer assistance and pet industry employee relations.
The Captive Animal's Protection Society (CAPS) was founded in 1957. CAPS seeks to prevent the use and exploitation of captive and preforming animals, and investigate cases of alleged cruelty against captive and preforming animals.
Founded in 1924, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is a nonprofit 501c(3) organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and aquariums in the areas of conservation, education, science, and recreation.
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest and most effective animal protection organization. Established in 1954, The HSUS seeks a humane and sustainable world for all animals, a world that will also benefit people. It is America's mainstream force against cruelty, exploitation and neglect, as well as the most trusted voice extolling the human-animal bond.
The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is working to conserve key wildlife populations across their project sites. WCS conservationists are working with over 350 species around the globe, and continue to make new discoveries. They also are committed to the conservation of a selected set of “global priority species” that are vulnerable to extinction, important to humans, and powerful icons of nature.
At Commonly Asked Questions About Service Animals in Places of Business, the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Association) answers commonly asked questions. This document is targeted to business owners. It delineates the laws that apply to businesses, what defines a service animal, how to differentiate between a service animal and a pet, and how to accommodate a disruptive animal. It also explains that the customer with a disability has the right to behave in the same manner as any other customer; for example, he or she has the right to ride in a taxicab with his or her animal and he or she shall not be segregated from other customers. This document does not address the issue of the individual animal, only saying that it is the customer's responsibility to take care of his or her animal.
The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) is mandated by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to provide information for improved animal care and use in research, testing, teaching, and exhibition.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 @ 6:00pm Tuttleman Learning Center Room 303AB
Join PAW in a screening and discussion of the documentary “Earthlings,” which addresses the connection between animals and humans, and the effects on human lives, animal lives, and the environment.
Refreshments will be provided. Nature. Animals. Humankind. Make the Connection.
Here's a superb article on animal law that appeared last week in The Guardian. The article primarily features Swiss attorney and animal advocate Antoine Goetschel, but it also brings up many questions we've been asking in class and in our writings regarding the moral and legal status of nonhuman animals: Should nonhuman animals be represented by a lawyer during any criminal trial in which it is judged to be the victim? Why shouldn't an animal . . . have the same legal right to representation as any other victim in a criminal trial? Do all animal species deserve equal rights? What about the legal and moral status of genetically engineered nonhuman animals?
On Sunday the Swiss voted down a proposal that would have given animals legal representation during any criminal trial in which the animal is judged to be the victim.
A few of you were surprised to discover in class readings and discussion that the United States Animal Welfare Act (AWA) excludes certain animals from its definition of “animal,” including birds, rats, and mice, and animals used in the livestock and poultry industries.
For those of you interested in reading the act and its various amendments, I’ve added a link on our blog.
Here is the AWA’s legal definition of “animal”:
Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded animal, which is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. This term excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research; horses not used for research purposes; and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to, livestock or poultry used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs, including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes.
The system [of carnism] . . . is structurally similar to other systems that are built around exploitation, in that it uses one group, in this case its animals, in particular farmed animals to serve the interests of another group. And it uses certain defenses to prevent humane people from recognizing what they're doing when they're participating in the system. . . . It is coercive in that it prevents the average person from being aware of what they're contributing to, what they're participating in, and prejudices they may have in the process. . . . There's a growing body of literature looking at the connection between meat and masculinity and it's very interesting.
We'll discuss the topic of eating animals in the last unit of the semester. Meanwhile, it may be useful to think about Joy's notion of carnism vis-a-vis moral, ethical, psychological, social, and cultural factors that inform a person's decision to use (or not use) animals as food. We'll also talk about what Joy notes above as "the connection between meat and masculinity." A good place to start is Carol J. Adams's The Sexual Politics of Meat. We've already looked at the ideological connections between gender rights and animal rights in Josephine Donovan's work, and you'll notice Carol J. Adams has an essay in the "Animals for Food" section of The Animal Ethics Reader.
I may be wrong here, but it seems that there are more female scholars than male scholars working on the connections between gender politics and the politics of eating animals. If anyone finds any information on this, feel free to share it here.
Today's Radio Times program on NPR included an interesting segment entitled "Who's to Blame for Pit Bull Attacks: The Dogs or Their Owners?" Radio Times host Marty Moss-Coane interviewed Debora Bresch, an attorney and ASPCA Director of Government Relations, Eastern Region, and Colleen Lynn, a survivor of a pit-bull attack and founder of Dogsbite.org, a public education website about dangerous dogs, "specifically pit bull type dogs."
Here's an introduction to the segment from the Radio Times web page:
Which end of the leash to blame after dog attacks? And should there oughta be a law? Three pit bull attacks on humans over the weekend in Philadelphia, including the fatal mauling of a 38-year-old Fishtown woman by one of her mother's six pit bulls, have brought the controversial kind of dog back into the headlines. They have raised long-simmering arguments over who should be held responsible after a dog attack, the dog or the dog owner?
The segment is of interest to our course not only because of the recent dog attacks in Philadelphia, but also because it concerns important issues regarding animal companionship--one of the primary ways in which humans and nonhuman animals relate. And breed-specific legislation (BSL) has a very real impact both on the lives of companion animals and on their caretakers.
Analogies tend to have a polarizing effect on audiences, and as we’ve discussed in class, there’s been a lot of debate around comparisons between biologically-determined arguments in support of racism and sexism and biologically-determined arguments in support of speciesism.
I thought I’d share with you an example of a weak/false analogy that appeared in The State, a South Carolina newspaper. Republican Lt. Governor Andre Bauer makes a comparison between welfare assistance and feeding stray animals. The uproar over Bauer's comments has to do with an appeal to pathos that drives the comparison of humans on welfare to stray animals (see theriomorphism). It also has to do with an appeal to logos that drives a weak/false analogy underlying the argument. Here's the syllogism:
Humans on government welfare (A) are like stray animals (B) Feeding stray animals encourages dependence (C) and breeding (D) in stray animals Therefore, government welfare encourages dependence (C) and breeding (D) in humans
A is like B. B has properties C and D. Therefore, A has properties C and D.
The weakness of the conclusion stems from the weakness of the first premise, which asserts a comparison between A and B. Keep in mind that not all analogies are false, and the responsibility of the audience is to closely scrutinize the logic underlying arguments.
Finally, note below the appeal to ethos (Bauer’s comments are “un-Christian”) in the response by Mullins McLeod.
Here's the article:
Bauer: Furor over comments won't change stance
By LEROY CHAPMAN JR.
Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said Saturday he could have chosen his words more carefully when he compared people who take public assistance to stray animals Friday.
But Bauer, in an interview with The State Saturday, said a furor over his comments doesn't change this fact: South Carolina needs to have an honest conversation about the cycle of government dependency among its poorest residents.
Bauer, a two-term Republican who is running for governor, said there are parents who are dependent upon the government for food and shelter, but who are unwilling to engage in their children's education. This, he said, robs children of a chance to break out of poverty.
And as a candidate for governor, Bauer said, now is the time to start talking about something that others are unwilling to tackle. Bauer said he wants to lead that conversation.
"Why shouldn't you have to do something?" Bauer asked of people receiving food stamps, free school lunches and public housing. "In government, we are too often giving a handout instead of a hand up."
Friday, Bauer said giving food to needy people means encouraging dependence. It also gives the recipients a license to have children who will also be dependent on public aid, he said.
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals," Bauer told a Greenville-area crowd. "You know why? Because they breed.
"You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
Those comments caused Democratic candidates running for governor and some lawmakers to question Bauer's faith, compassion and timing.
The state is enduring the nation's worst-ever recession. Bauer's comments came on the same day South Carolina reported its jobless rate is now 12.6 percent. State agencies are reporting more South Carolinians are tapping public assistance, as job creation is scant and job loss has remained robust.
"It amazes me how some Republican politicians claim a monopoly on Christianity and then go out and say and do some of the most un-Christian things imaginable," said Charleston attorney Mullins McLeod, who participated in a candidates forum in Columbia along with Bauer Saturday. "... Bauer's comments are despicable and the total opposite of the Christian values Bauer espouses."
Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Kershaw, said if there is anyone not taking responsibility, it's Bauer and his fellow Republicans. Sheheen, who is running for governor, noted the GOP has been in control while economic conditions in South Carolina have deteriorated and left more than 600,000 citizens jobless.
"The increase of people in our state who need jobs, food and shelter is a direct result of the failed policies of those who've controlled our state government for the past eight years," said Sheheen. "I am disgusted by these comments. They show an unbelievable lack of compassion toward the unemployed workers in our state who are hurting during these hard times."
Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, said it's ironic that Bauer's comments appeared in The Greenville News next to an article about the state's jobless rate setting a new record.
In that article, Martin said, there was a jobless worker who talked about the indignity of a willing and able worker having to ask for food stamps. "People are hurting," Martin said.
State Education Superintendent Jim Rex, a Democrat who is also running for governor, said Bauer should apologize.
"If the intent of Lieutenant Governor Bauer's remarks was to blame children, who are not responsible for their own predicaments, or to blame adults, who want to work but cannot find jobs, it is regrettable," Rex said. "It is reprehensible that a statewide elected official would compare his fellow citizens to stray animals. He should apologize."
Bauer said he doesn't need to apologize. His comments, Bauer said, are not about hardships associated with the economy, but a culture of dependence that is there during good economic times.
He also said he wasn't advocating the abolition of the federal school-lunch program or any other government aid. Bauer said he wants the state to rethink how those programs are administered.
"This is out of love and compassion," Bauer said. "If I have to take a hit, then fine. ... I will take short-term pain for long-term gain."
Bauer, 40, said the criticism of him is political opportunism. He said there is probably no one in South Carolina politics who identifies more with the plight of the poorest South Carolinians or who spends more time helping the needy.
Bauer said he's been poor, unlike most S.C. politicians. Bauer is a child of divorce. As a result, he and his sister qualified for reduced-price lunches in the Irmo school system, something that was obvious to other kids because of the different color lunch ticket he was given.
Bauer said he was "mortified" by the idea of presenting the reduced-price lunch ticket. "Everyone knew," he said.
That's part of the reason, Bauer said, that he has raised enough money to give away nearly 10,000 pairs of shoes last year and 6,000 blankets.
Bauer on Saturday had returned from a charity drive to aid victims of the Haiti earthquake. He says his efforts will send three truckloads of supplies to victims there.
"I haven't done any of this for publicity," Bauer said. "I don't know if the folks who are criticizing me have put in the work I have in helping people.
"I have spent many USC football Saturdays outside the stadium hustling (for donations). It all goes to my foundation. Where is the media coverage of that?"
Bauer said there is also little media coverage of the frustrated public school system that wants parents across the spectrum to get more involved with their children's education.
Bauer says he frequently hears from teachers. There was a time when he was one. Bauer worked as a substitute teacher for four years while he was also in the state Senate. He says he did so because he wanted to know firsthand about what works in schools and what doesn't work.
The experience, Bauer said, raised as many questions as it provided answers. That's why, he said, the state needs to have what he says is a necessary but potentially painful discussion. If nobody else is willing to talk about it, then he is, Bauer said.
Human and non-human animals are similar yet different in certain respects. It is true that both are animals and they share similar undeniable attributes such as the natural living process necessary to keep both groups alive. They also feel similar kinds of emotions such as pain and pleasure. It is on the basis of such similarities that some human individual argue that all animals are equal to one another in terms of value.
Despite the common similarities between animals there are very distinctive differences such as human and non-human logic levels as well as man’s ability to make ethical decisions derived from the knowledge that we as human have acquired which other non-human animals have not. It is on this belief that our ability to reason and that our intellectual capacity surpasses those of non-human animals, that some humans deem it justification enough that humans and animals are not-alike.
However, I believe that many humans believe humans and non-human animals are not equal to one another because of our own self-interest and what we gain from being in the position of power so to speak, regardless of whether there is truth behind this argument. The way animals are treated in my opinion has less to do with whether or not it is or isn’t fair to treat animals the way humans do but more so because we have the power to do so and there is a benefit at hand from doing so for the most part.
Humans are animals! I dont see how we can seperate human animals from non-human animals, it just doesn't sound right to me. Instead I would like to use the terms moral patients/moral agents (the moral agents in this case being "human animals" and the moral patients being the "non-human animals"). Moral agents are no better than moral patients in any type of way. The only thing that distinguishes us from them is the fact that we have an advantage. We still eat other animals, for the most part, and we still do what we need to do to survive. Some may think that it is pure cruelty, the way we treat moral patients as far as hunting and consuming, but its all happens the way it was supposed to happen. Certain species thrive on other species in order to survive. Its literally the circle of life. I'm not saying its right but it's what we know and its how we live. Human animals are the same as non-human animals, we just have a larger population. If there were as many lions as there are humans, I'm pretty sure we wouldnt be the dominating creatures in any environment.
I personally believe that the only difference between human animals and non human animals is the way in which we communicate. While non human animals are unable to communicate verbally, they still have their own ways of communicating, we simply however overlook it at times. Non human animals feel pain and many believe other emotions just as we human do. Many humans however no longer view themselves as animals because of our advancements in communication that set us apart from every other species of animal. We are in fact however, just like them.
There are many distinguishing differences between human and non-human animals. The biggest issue is a moral one. Human animals do not eat eachother to survive, we do not have to, but I strongly believe that if we had to we would not accept that and we would come up with a different way to survive. We are able to change throughout time and adapt easily. Animals hunt and eat eachother because they have accepted that as their way of life and do not care to change the way their world works. Morally, in my opinion, animals are wrong that they feed off of each other. As the human race we have rules and decided that that is not ok. This makes us most different from animals because we in that way, band together and they do not.
There are obvious differences between humans and animals, but it is difficult to say that humans deserves life more than animals. Animals think and feel happiness and pain. Millions of people around the world house adopt animals as pets, and love them unconditionally. But so many animals are abused, harmed, and numerous killed for man's desire. The skin of a animal to make a purse, or a jacket. The food industry brutally murders countless animals every single day. Yes, animals do not have the ability to stand up for themselves, but that does not give humans the right to take advantage, to abuse and torture. More animals need to be treated with respect and love. The food industry needs to change how it takes care of animals, and all over people need to contribute money to help the innocent that cannot help themselves.
The difference between Human Animals and Non-Human Animals, in my opinion, is in the way that we think. Humans think about ways to make to give us an advantage, and Non-Human Animals still think with their primal instincts. Humans will mainly think of means to get them ahead in life, like ways of getting more money or developing new tools, whereas our Non-Human counterparts primarily think of how to hunt or survive. Humans also think with a conscious, determining what is right and wrong. Animals don’t think with a conscious, they think with instinct, and that is what separates Human Animals from Non-Human Animals.
I believe humans can be distinguished from non-human animals on the basis of our ability to pass moral judgment. Non-human animals can not choose right from wrong, or even articulate that that choice exists. One may argue that small children or the mentally handicapped who can not decipher morality, based on my argument, should be classified as non-human animals. I combat this with the belief that these groups of people are offspring of, and have the potential abilities of, a human who is able to pass moral judgement and therefore should not be classified as a non-human animal. A bird, from time of birth, to the time of its demise will never have the opportunity, or ability to pass moral judgement.
In my opinion the difference between human and non-human animals is in the make-up of their physical and intellectual beings. Human animals do not just aim to survive, they go a step further and strive to be successful. Non-human animals live to survive and keep thier species alive. I believe there is a distinct difference between the two simply because of levels of intelligence. Humans have made great strides in their advances in technology and have developed a better knowledge of themselves and the non-human animals around them. This being said, non-human animals' brains lack those developments which humans have achieved. I believe this is the difference between human and non-human animals.
I believe that the only difference between human animals and non-human animals is a sense of understanding. Human animals have a different way of interpreting the world around them than non-human animals. Some human animals look to the world in a philosophical manner and some look at it based on logic and what they see around them. Non-human animals only learn to survive in the environment surrounding them but they have no understanding of why the things around them exist.
I’ve always had my own my own views on what distinguished human animals from non-human animals, but after reading several excerpts from The Animal Ethics Reader I was introduced to certain factors I have never thought of before. First off, human animals are easy to distinguish because they consist of just people. However non-human animals can be broken down to several other sub categories such as domesticated animals, wild animals, and work animals (cannot think of correct name, but like farm animals, lab animals and whatnot). Of course one obvious distinction between people and all non-human animals is the fact that people are dependant creatures that live a civilized lifestyle. Tom Regan in his The Case For Animal Rights makes the distinction with using moral agents and moral patients. Moral agents are individuals that are held accountable for their actions, while moral patients lack such skills to be held accountable. Another thing is rights. Humans of course have rights and so forth, but only certain animals receive them. For example, today if someone was to kill a dog, the consequences are almost as if they murdered a baby. Yet the hunting of certain animals is still a common activity and perfectly legal. So domesticated and wild animals fall into two totally separate groups. I feel it is all very complicated because certain people want certain animals to some rights but not others. I feel that there are two groups. Humans and non-humans. If you are not human, than too bad. In this world it is the survival of the fittest and that’s how it has been for hundreds of years.
In my opinion, there are many aspects that distinguish us as humans from non-human animals. We as humans have the need to be successful in mostly everything we do from the biggest of things to smallest. Humans desire their children to be successful in life as well and sometimes live vicariously through their offspring. Unlike humans, non-human animals are more concerned with surviving; making it through the harsh winters, trying not to get eaten, and sometimes even trying not to get run over by a car. Although, humans also have a sense of survival, that sense is not as great as the survival intuition of a grizzly bear. Humans have a more complex brain than that of other animals. Yet, humans and non-human animals also have much in common, such as babies are very dependent on their mothers, and require nurturing and care from them. Humans and non-human animals both are living and coexisting in the world, and we have not had a problem yet.
I think that the concept that most resonated with me was the idea of moral patients and moral agents as defined in Tom Regan's reading, The Case for Animal Rights. The concept that animals do indeed feel pain and pleasure, but do not have the skills needed to express these emotions is something that I find quite interesting. Regan says that "moral patients lack the prerequisites that would enable them to control their own behavior," this theory says that animals can not be held accountable for their actions because they do not comprehend what they are doing. If an animal attacks another animal (human or otherwise) they can not be held accountable for the actions because they can not grasp the full effects of the action. Humans can be held accountable and certainly are held to a degree of moral compass because they can fully understand the ramifications of any given action. I think that the ability to comprehend is the main and most defining difference between human and non-human animals. Animals are moral patients, whereas humans are moral agents.
In my opinion I guess one of the main things that probably separates Humans from other Animals is the use of technology by the Human species. The development of this technology has over time continued to set us further and further apart from all the other life which occupies this earth. I feel that there are more similarities between humans and other Animals such as systems of language, intelligence, curiosity, the ability to learn, the ability to feel pain, and to feel emotions both positive and negative. I am not against technology but I believe that it can be a very destructive force I.E. global warming, Nuclear weapons / warfare, Factory farms / genetic engineering, etc.
Human Animals/ Non-Human Animals
I believe that there are many differences between human animals and non- human animals. Human animals have a specific way of life, in which they work,read, go to school for example. Whereas, non- human animals are not concerned with all of these responsbilities. They have other responsibilites, such as having to be fit for survival, hunt food and so on. Non -human animals don't have to strive to reach their future goals in order to succeed which I believe makes the differnce between human animals and non- human animals.
In my opinion what sets apart Human Animals from Non-Human Animals is the level of importance. Usually when it comes to humans they put themselves first than their animals. For example when keeping a pet the owner is much kinder to their kids when handling issues but in order to make the pets learn they often get more controlling. They make sure that the pets know who's in charge, the animal often responds like how child would but instead of being told to go in the corner they are faced with either getting it together or go to the pound. Another thing is if there was a choice to save a life usually most people would go for the human being before the animal.
In my opinion, what distinguishes human animals from non-human animals is moral stature.In Chapter 1 of The Animal Ethics Reader, author Tom Regan argues that non-human animals are “moral patients”, which Regan describes as beings which “lack the prerequisites that would enable them to control their own behavior in ways that would make them morally accountable for what they do”.Regan claims that “moral agents” (aka human animals) are more complex and possess a wider range of sophisticated abilities which allow them to make conscious moral decisions.Simply put, human animals are capable of recognizing wrong from right, and are able to choose between right and wrong in a conscious, well-processed and well thought-out manner.
In my opinion, what distinguishes human animals from non-human animals is simply the idea of consciousness. As human animals, we have the ability to follow a moral code. We can decide what is right or wrong and are responsible for our decisions. In comparison, non-human animals lack this consciousness and therefore the ability to control their actions.
It seems to be that there are many differences between human-animals and non-human animals. One thing that's apparent is non-human animals are still primitive and can easily be distinguished apart from human-animals. Some of the more distinguishable things would be that human animals have lasting culture, religion, and advancing technology. Not much has changed for non-human animals, but change is in general terms, almost an everyday occurrence in the lives of human-animals. Some more differences would be that human animals have superior intelligence, and can think abstractly. Aside from these things, there are many more ways to compare human-animals to non-human animals.
In my opinion, the main difference between human and non human animals is language. Humans have created thousands of different languages that they have kept going for centuries. They have written and preserved them so that they will forever be a part of the human world. Non human animals on the other hand have not created a set language that they have ‘written’ down. They do have mating calls and other types of ‘language,’ but they have never preserved them.
In my opinion, the there are a few things that distinguish a human and a non-human animal. The thing sticks out in my mind the most is the ability to have desires and ambitions other than just basic survival. Maybe some non-human animals are capable of some accomplishments like learning a new trick and some may even be able to do extraordinary things like some of the animals on talk shows and things like that but the majority of animals cannot read, write, paint, or do all these other things that humans can. The ability to use a computer and successfully graduate from high school are things that help to distinguish humans and non-human animals. Also, although non-human animals may feel some emotions they do not fall in love and share a true companionship with the same species. Its really just about survival and mating with animals and emotions and ambitions do not go further than that.
-Samantha Medina
In my opinion, there are several factors that distinguish human animals from non-human animals, the most apparent being human animals' ability to communicate and think on a complex level. Though it is true that non-human animals possess the ability to connect and communicate with each other, these animals cannot portray emotion and intellect on the same level as human animals. Non-human animals cannot write novels or create artwork, at least not intentionally. Non-human animals do not seek the entertainment or accomplishment that drives human-animals to do such things.
According to the readings in the Animal Ethics Reader, there are many distinctions between human and non-human animals. In my opinion, what distinguishes human animals from non-human animals is our ability to speak and communicate with other humans. The fact that non-human animals lack language suggests that they are inferior to human animals and do not really deserve rights. Not only do non-human animals lack language but they also lack the ability to plan and set goals for the future which is just one of the many characteristics humans have that non-human animals do not. Like Aristotle, I believe that non-human animals exist for the good of man.
In my opinion, the main thing that separates human animals from non-human animals is the ability to formulate goals and have desires in life. Human animals create goals for themselves that they would like to achieve throughout their lives. Non-human animals only focus on basic survival necessities, such as food, shelter, etc. Human animals seem to be on a higher level than non-human animals because of this ability to create such thorough mental processes, instead of solely focusing on the basic physical needs required to survive.
According to the readings we have done from the "Animal Ethics Reader," there is a very clear distinction between human animals and non-human animals. What distinguishes human animals from non-human animals would be the idea that human animals have a moral code and can commit right and wrong actions, where as non-human animals may have the same type of function in the world, but yet lack the ability to do right or wrong actions because they do not have the consciousness to control what they do. Any animal that has that consciousness and can be held responsible for their actions can be considered a human animal, because like them most humans are responsible for their actions unless they are infants or mentally incapable people, and therefore they are taken care of by other humans. With that being said, because they are mentally not capable of taking care of themselves or being held accountable for their actions, what does that make all household pets, who are taken care of by people? Just a thought.
In my opinion, humans differ greatly from non-animals on different scales. The ability of verbal communication that humans share is one of the most obvious differences. After that, I would have to say that culture and the ability to change routine are the next major differences. Although I do not want to say that animals do not have a culture per say, it is just less identified if it is not being studied. Also, being able to move around, make conscience decisions, and progress throughout time without having to go evolve into a new species, gives humans the upper hand and definitely draws the line for distinguishing us from non-human animals.
While both human and non-human animals use reasoning to survive, humans animals have a higher degree of reasoning, along with respect and rights. The difference between human and non-human animals is how they fulfill the "subject-of-life" criteria, and how inherent value applies to them. I agree with Carl Cohen who said that 'although non-human animals have the right not to be destroyed without reason, they do not have total inherent value', thus cannot be held to the same standard as human animals. However, I believe Cohen was wrong for saying that non-human animals do not deserve rights.
The one main thing that distinguishes humans from non-human animals is goal setting, or planning life before it happens. Even though some animals are so complex that even humans can not figure them out, no animal is quite as unique as humans are. As far as we know, animals just live to survive and breed. Humans on the other hand, are always planning what they are going to do in the future, whether it is a career path or just plans for next weekend.
Humans are cognitively more evolved than other animals. We have a sixth sense which is "thought". It is strong enough to allow us reflection, contemplation, analysis and premeditation, plus some. Dolphins are cognitively advanced animals too, but they do not have as many biological advantages for say, organizing an underwater world-wide web, let alone walking the Earth above land where humans reside.
Non-humans often make up for their lack of a 6th sense with heightened awareness in other senses. Exhibit A: Canines have a strong and complex sense of smell. Just like any thing that is about the Earth, humans are evolved in one way more than another. As evolved beings we give complex reactions... A rock, however, will have a very primal reaction. If you hit a human being they are likely to cry or become angry; if you hit a rock, it is likely to erode or reverberate a sound/noise. In my opinion, and the thoughts of many cultures, non-human animals act as archival points-of-view for the human beings. In other words, Each non-human essence has an element or characteristic that can be expressed on a human level. Thus, seeing humans as a vessel to funnel multiple walks of energy.
Human animals have many different characteristics that distinguish them from non-human animals. Human animals are able to use speech to convey their thoughts and spread their message among all other human animals. Non-human animals are only able to share their feelings and thoughts with animals that are the same as them. Human animals are also able to create and take part in culture. Non-human animals are not able to take part in various cultures because cultures do not exist in the animal kingdom. There are various differences between human and non-human animals but the largest by far is humans ability to use speech to connect with other humans. When you are able to connect with other humans with your ideas and values a society and culture can be built. Since animals are not able to establish this connection they are unable to create any sort of culture or society.
My opinion of humans has never excluded them from the animal kingdom in the way a lot of other people might, I would say that the similarities between humans and animals far outweigh the differences. What I would say distinguishes us are the advantages of real speech and a written language, they allow us to communicate more than notions or feelings, and the allow us to teach each other and maintain knowledge over time even long after its creator dies. As clever as many animals are, none of them can leave me information .
What makes an animal "human" or "Non-human"? In my opinion, this is not an accurate measure, as there is only one species that is truly human: humans. However, those that are like humans and able to learn, reason, and grow is what needs to be placed. I believe that individuality and intelligence play the biggest part in what makes an animal 'human'. If the species preserves it's own life, yet can still show consideration for others of its own kind, then that is a good basis on what is 'human'. For instance, worms do not seem to have much care about any other creature, even other worms. However, dogs are able to learn tricks, figure out their own sense of what is right and wrong, and have a family. This is an important part to discover what makes an animal 'human'.
After reading and thinking about the topic, it is hard for me to decide a distinct difference between human and non-human animals. Some of the most significant qualities of being human--the abilities to emote, protect, fear, dominate, survive, comprehend and, yes, reason and ration can be all shared by and demonstrated through non-human animals. We as human animals make the separation mostly due to physical appearances and some obvious physical limitations of which non-human animals experience, but when it comes down to it, we are all the same. As time progresses, I believe this distinction will be even more difficult to see because we, meaning human and non-human animals, are both capable of doing the same things. The one only difference humans have, I would say, is the investment in religion or a reverence for a higher being and the belief in an after life.
In my opinion the line between what distinguishes humans and non-humans is a fine one. It is hard to say what people have accepted as the difference between humans and non-humans or why we have rights as humans, and yet other animals do not have those same rights. What entitles us to this superiority over other non-humans? I believe that animals are entitled to rights and be protected from abuse, however, I do believe that animals are useful and productive to our society and their domestication, as well as their potential death is beneficial to humans. I feel as though the reason for this distinction is due to a lot of different factors. Non-humans are not nearly as mentally equipped. They do not have the same emotionally, biological, or instincts as we do, and this has led us to be superior to other animals. I do not think anything but our brain really separates us from other animals and this has led us to have a universal rule of the world that other animals inhabit. It is a very odd system that has occurred in our earths history, but it does not seem to show any signs of changing or stopping.
Well, i personal dont think there is a difference. i mean an animal is an animal! They each have their own unique features to them. Why is it up to us to define them or to classify them. They just a part of the cycle. Time and space moves on with or with out them, just as it would with or with out you and me! There is no distinct feature that sets one apart from another and thats that.
The difference between human and non-human animals in my opinion is brain development, and the fact that human animals are able to reason through situations. Unlike non-human animals, human animals are able to view a situation, and are thus able to chose the proper course of action that follows. Non-human animals seem to react to an event based on impulse, emotions, or instincts. It seems as though non-human animals do not act as rationally to situations as logically as human animals do, and this is what I think separates non-human from human animals.
In my opinion, defining the difference between human and non-human animals is as easy as defining the difference between black and white. Humans are part of the Homo sapiens species, non-human animals are not. However, this does not mean that non-human animals don’t deserve rights. Animals have equal inherent value to humans and deserve some rights.
The definition between “human animals” and “non-human animals” in my opinion comes down to the ability to reason. Humans and animals are the same in almost every other way. Both humans and animals rely on our instincts to survive, we both have the capacity for love and relationships, and at our core both of our end goals in life are to carry on our genetic lineage. The key difference must be in a human’s ability to use logic and reason. Arts and sciences could never exist in an animal world. Humans have developed to the point where we are not constantly focused on survival and this is a result of our ability to reason.
In my opinion the characteristic that distinguishes human animals from non-human animals is their capacity for varying interactions, or intelligence, according to the world around that animal. An animal that can be attributed with different social personality traits is an animal that can be assigned with moral rights. When an animal can act socially for good or bad past its instincts of being territorial, or mating calls its has enough intelligence for moral agency.
The ability to reason and make educated decisions are the two main differences between human and non-human animals. Animals act more out of instinct than anything else; their main motivation being survival. While humans act instinctively at times, they are also driven by a moral code which often has an effect on the decisions being made. A human can take a situation and think about it in a variety of ways, such as morally, rationally, instinctively, etc., whereas an animal cannot. This would seem to be the most important difference between human and non-human animals, and one that has led us to the position we are in today.
Before and after reading the selected parts of The Animal Ethics Reader I still feel strongly that there is still no difference between human animals and non-human animals. To classify them into these two different categories is slightly absurd. All animals have a type of code and ethic they share amongst themselves, no matter how different each and every organism is. They all have something unique in their own psychological behavior towards each other and towards the outside of their species. I find it wrong from a scientific stand point for us to give animals feelings and emotions that we as humans have created and deemed them right or wrong. To designate something as human or non-human is looking down on creatures because they don't have the same constructs that we do. Its like saying we are non-ant like creatures because we don't blindly obey a supreme overlord making us inefficient selfish beings, incapable of sacrificing a few weaklings to better the colony. It just becomes an improper classification design to group animals together with similar traits as humans, instead of grouping animals based on their DNA structure or a more fundamentally supportive class system.
After reading the passages from "The Animal Ethics Reader" I have a rather clear idea of the difference between human animals and non-human animals. The main difference, as I see it, is that human animals have the ability to follow a moral code where as non-human animals simply have interests but no code to follow. Both humans and non-humans can have interests, but the interests held by non-humans are more primal and based upon their well being. Those interests that are held by humans include the aforementioned ones of non-humans but also include moral interests.
After reading those sections in the Animal ethics book, it seems that the major difference between humans and animals is the abiblity to make a decison based on if something is either right or wrong and the ability to feel happieness for a good action or remorse for a bad action which is referred to as the conscious. This distinction contributes to the seperation of the two, making humans more valueable than animals.
In my opinion (which is clearly what your looking for, not a groundbreaking philosophical astonishment) the relation between human and non-human animals is obviously a topic of controversy. Consciousness is key when evaluating each sides of the spectrum. As humans we're capable of doing good or bad because we have the sense of consciousness before and after our actions. Don't mind this loose explanation but as humans we understand what's good or bad and hey, if we proceed to do this good or bad, that's what makes it good or bad in the first place. Having a conscience grants us the mind power to reanalyze, reevaluate. and revitalize the action soon to be committed and its repercussions to follow. After the action is said and done we are then judged on a scale of morality from our peers and even within. Non-human animals lack this consciousness and therefore are unable to use reason in undergoing actions to be judged in a moral sense.
Non-human animals are more moral than human animals. Non-human animals focus on a simple life and kill only for the act of staying alive, which proves humans to be more evil. Also, critically thinking brains, extreme mobility, and advancing use of technology distinguishes human dominance in society against non-human animals. More dominance creates more worries and stress than non-human animals possess, which may be the leading cause of our evil acts.
In my opinion there are numerous things to distinguish between humans from non-human animals. We share more things in common than differences such as hear, smell, taste, feel, and sight. However we do share some dissimilarities as well including one obvious difference and that is the fact humans are more likely to know the consequences of their actions. Non- human animals act more on instinct and do not think about the consequences because they do know whether it is right or wrong so therefore they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Another difference between the two is that animals are able to work together better than humans in groups however humans use a factor which animals do not possess and that is 'common sense'. I believe the reasons why humans have a more dominant role in society is because they have better moral and ethical choices than animals.
The intrinsic difference between human animals and non- human animals is the amount of value and power they possess within the confines of the human world. In terms of capital, animals are regarded as either a source of nutrition, labor, or companionship whereas humans are seen as thinking, feeling vessels of a soul. This decidedly human take on the subject creates a hierarchy between the two, with humans choosing to take precedence over animals.
I believe there is no one specific difference that separates human beings from animals. Instead, there is a series of multiple characteristics that distinguish the two organisms from each other. Some of the anatomical features of man are unlike that of any other species of animal. Such things include the way humans walk and the structure of the brain. Only humans walk in an erect position, and the brain is normally two to three times larger than most other animals. The other apparent substantial differences are found in logic, communication, and senses. Animals are not self-conscious, which means they are not aware of the birth or reason for their existence. Human beings are the only living things that portray a complex array of both written and verbal communication. Sure animals make different noises, but no other animal can comprehend human intellect. Finally, humans can experience a vast amount of emotions unlike any other animal. Ultimately, humans are different from animals in anatomical function and mental capacity.
I believe that communication and brain development distinguishes human animals from non-human animals. The means of which human animals communicate distinguish them from non human animals because it is a more sophisticated form of communication. Non-human animals tend to communicate in a less complex manner such as using similar sounds or even body movements to send messages to others animals, while human animals have a complete system of alphabets that can be joined in multiple ways to have multiple meanings. For example, the male Anolis Lizard expands his throat sac in attempt to impress the female lizard that it wants to mate with. A male human that wants to have an intimate relationship with a female human communicates this to her using language. The means of communication that human animals and non-human animals use is a direct reflection of the difference in the level of brain development that each has. The sophisticated language that human animals use to communicate reflects the more sophisticated and complex level of brain function that human animals have. The less sophisticated and complex the communication of non-human animals reflects how less complex their brain function is.
Our world today is based on the fact that we as humans reign supreme over all other creatures. Distinguishing homo sapiens from these other types of animals relies on the fact that humans possess the ability to decide what they want to do in their lives. Animals do have the ability to act on their own, with some species, such as the dolphins, having extremely high intelligence. But when most animals are seen in movement, their actions are instinctive and they have no regards for their own future except in the case of surviving at that particular moment. Also, humans seperate actions into positive and negative, taking into account what consequences can and/or may occur, something that non-humans have no knowledge of. There is a thin line between the two species which has intellectual differences at it's center.
In my opinion I think the differences between human and non human animals is logic and reasoning. Non human animals for the most part tend to just go off of instinct not really thinking through the consequences of their actions. They are similar in the sense that both adapt to their surroundings and have this sense of protection for others of their own kind. Both would protect their family in times of dangerous situations such as predators who may want to kill and eat them. Another similarity as that both human and non human animals are taught basic survival techniques and lessons when they are young and these skills stay with both groups for their entire lives in order to survive on a daily basis. I do think that human animals have more of a sense of morality than non human animals which in part is greatly due to where they live and interact.
I think what distinguishes human animals from non-human animals is the ability to reason, think critically and make advancements. We can invent many different things to enhance our society and make things easier for ourselves. We are also capable of preventing things from happening due to our reasoning and common sense. Animals act based on instinct which is survival. These are basic things such as protecting themselves, reproduction and consumption. Even though we also act on survival, there is deeper thought and reasoning used for these necessities. Our capabilities make human animals more distinct than non-human animals
Reason is what distinguishes non-human animals from human animals. Although human animals and non-human animals share basic instincts such as the ability to think, feel, store memory, and have interests, these instincts do no imply that these classes of animals are equal. Non-human animals rely on their primitive instincts to survive while human animals control their instincts. Human animals have traditions, social ethics, and advanced emotions that distinguish them from non-human animals. All of these characteristics of human animals stem from their greater ability to reason.
I believe that what separates human animals from non-human animals is our dominance. Theoretically, humans are at the top of the food chain and that should make the other animals fearful. We basically have taken over the world and have the power to exterminate all other life forms, even ourselves, if we choose to do so. Humans are dangerous because of the kind of dominance we have. As it seems, the complexity of our thought, along with the beauty of our existence, has made our climb to the top inevitable. This is not to say that animals do not feel or think like we do, but we do it better. In fact, I believe that we do everything better. Humans dominate the social and biological spectrum, and that is what separates us.
The world is comprised of many different beings living together in harmony with nature. Although all living things are indeed living there are distinct differences that set apart the human race from all other species on our earth. The most prominent of these differences is the ability to think critically and analyze information. Although animals have the ability to cooperate and communicate as humans do, they do not possess the ability to apply reflective judgement upon their actions. This ability allows the human race to not only evolve physically but to evolve mentally as well through reflection and the revision of mistakes. Many non-human animals continue to take part in dangerous or unethical behavior without ever stopping to think if their behavior may be a mistake. I believe this to be the reason why we still find numerous non-human animals dead on the side of the road after being hit by an automobile. If they had the ability to critically think they would have developed the ability to look both ways before crossing by now.
In my own opinion, I think there are plenty of things/issues that distinguish human animals from non-human animals. The first issue for me is the thought of survival. Non-human animals are either put in the wild or are born there. They specifically focus on survival of the fitest. They deal with predators and preys. They know who and what they can eat and not eat to survive. Non-human animals know how to survive in the wilderness. For instance, some animals know how to camouflauge themselves to protect themselves from their predators and also their prey. On the other side, human animals honestly could not survive in the wilderness for over a week. Studies and people have done so but do human animals really know how to survive more than a week in the wilderness? I do not believe so. If a human were in the wilderness and had no food or water and relied on the animals in the wilderness and the water in the wilderness, they would not survive all that much or eventually.
