The strongest statement in this section is, "Civilization depends on the exploitaion but cannot justify it." This means that the human civilization has to take/destroy parts of nature of the earth in order to increase a higher standard of living. There are three responses to this dilemma. The first is to refuse all limitations that animal suffering is natural and necessary to gain higher standards. The second is to declare that different animals are different but they are equal. This means that we would refuse to participate in cruelty in any way. The third way is to find compromises. Satisfy our needs no matter what gets in the way, but we would try to be reasonable to towards the cruelty of the animals.
Overall, I think that our society is leaning towards the third dilemma. Our society does not try to exterminate animals for no reason. Almost all of the time it is for profit/greed.
I have known a certain area my whole life where there was beautiful land with a great big white house in the middle of the plantation. The "people" wrecked the land and tore down the house in order to build apartments. There use to be deer on that land every day and know there are none. The land is no longer beautiful and i just past by it without noticing it. My example here is that we mainly tear down forests and land to build factories or whatever for our own greed.
Peter Singer has a very interesting point of view in this section of the book. He does not necessarily love animals, but he believes that we should treat them with the same respect that we do for humans. Just because dogs cannot express words, does that mean they don't feel pain? He also expresses that we are racists towards each other. We ignore others needs because we only look out for ourselves. Overall, i would have to agree with Singer. He presents his idea strongly and he backs it up. He considers all cruelty to animals utterly unacceptable and refuses to be a part of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment