AnimalsinDistress

=**Animals Suffer, As Do We**=

media type="file" key="2-04 Angel 1.m4a" width="300" height="50"


 * //... how do we let ourselves be moved by pity if not by transporting ourselves outside of ourselves and identifying with the suffering animal, by leaving as it were, our own being to take on its being? -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile, Book IV, 1762 (Preece, 1999).//**

Josephine Bradley Student #: 8685908 Tutor: Michelle Newcomb

This song “Angel” by Sarah McLachlan was chosen as an artefact to be listened to for its emotion as if sung for the animals who are out of our everyday attention and who are in distress, pain and suffering. Although her song is attributed to the life of a drug addict, most surely it can be listened to as singing for the unheard of pleas of these animals also, and her words appropriate a parallel to them by superimposing themselves the relatively short lives of these animals.
 * The Artifact **

**The Public Health Issue** Herein this Wiki, the Public Health Issue discussed will be the ethics and philosophy of the treatment of animals from the perspective of seeing it through the eyes of the animals. Even the marginally conscientious and compassionate will most surely colour in the black and white lines that depict the plight of the animals - that is to fill in the grey that nobody sees, or wants to see. With the knowledge of how animals are treated in reality, from the standpoint of factory farmed animals, the reasons are entirely gripping, distressful and poignant. Any animal in captivity, any animal in real slaughter-house scenarios and any animal not spared a compassionate thought or action through cruelty and neglect, creates the setting of innocent animals who cannot put into words a call for help or make known their suffering and pain. To stop, spare ten minutes out of our day to listen to their unheard cries, and inform ourselves of the kind of treatment that goes on under the surface, is to come from an even a mildly compassionate human standpoint. The cessation of their plight will only come about through information and with knowledge to critically question and take positive action in this tough area.

**Literature Review** Quite obviously, the topic of addressing the issue of animal treatment through ethics and philosophy comes back to the moral concepts of how we treat any living breathing beings which aren’t of human origin. Animal Ethics asks us to consider our belief systems on the morality of animals and how they ought to be treated. When we think harm or a wrong is happening and that something should be done about it, we must critically question our conduct and relationship with animals. Sentiency is the ability to feel pleasure and pain and this sentiency is, while a human characteristic, is also said to be something which non-humans possess (Singer, 2013). What makes this issue contentious is the fact that basically, animals cannot verbalize their distress and pain the way human beings do or overtly reason their thinking processes, and still there are humans who do not see this. This still does not give us the permission to treat non-human (Singer) animals with harm or disrespect. Early English medical doctor and utilitarian Jeremy Bentham, wrote that, "the question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?". Jeremy Bentham made it plainly clear that the vital attribute that entitles a being to the same equality of regard, is their capacity to suffer (Singer). John Locke made an obvious point about his belief in their ‘mental lives’ that they can reason without the ability to abstract’ (Rollin, 2007). One of the greatest skeptics of philosophy, David Hume actually affirmed the existence of animal thought and mentation saying that animals are gifted with reason and thought as well as human beings (Rollin, 2007), making this point of clarity to even the ignorant and mindless of beings. Gaverick Matheny pointed out in the conclusion of his piece in Peter Singer’s (2013) book, “In Defence of Animals: The Second Wave”, several ideas, that cause us to stop and consider this topic. Of these he puts forth questions such as whether it is at all feasible that we enforce protective anti-cruelty laws in favour of our beloved pets (dogs, cats and the like) – the ones everybody sees all the time – and yet not to those animals shut away in animal experimentation labs. He (Matheny, 2013) also points out in Singer’s book that what separates animals in labs from factory farmed animals is the actual physical distance between us and them and that this is disregard because we just do not have access to what goes on behind thick walls and shut doors. In Franklin’s book, “Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy”, “The Case for Animal Rights” by Tom Regan, says that animals are conscious and have feelings and possess a significant degree of subjectivity. Care ethics does purport to show that humans ought to show a sympathy to animals and further suggests that this kind of understanding and compassion is morally compulsory (Engster, 2006). Engster also suggests that it would seem inconsistent not to sympathise with animals seeing as though they share the common needs and aims with us or to somehow stop their basic efforts to satisfy their needs and maintain relief from unnecessary pain. Wurbel (2009) makes a point to say that even in humans there is a direct way of assessing subjective experiences, and that there’s no difference between animals and humans given the scientific assessment of suffering and well-being. It remains inconclusive as to whether or not an animal experiences suffering and this still ranks amongst the most difficult and controversial questions in biology (Wurbel, 2009). Subjective experiences felt by an animal are essentially overlooked and ignored as it cannot be ‘scientifically measured’ (Wurbel, 2009) and were denied their integral capacity for subjective experiences. //‘What cannot be investigated cannot exist’// (Wurbel, 2009), which is an epistemological //myth//. Humans still cannot make known the actual objective measure of their pain, suffering, even their pleasure (Wurbel, 2009), so why would we say the same is not experienced by an animal, simply because it cannot speak words? Mostly, we human beings will sympathise with animals based upon our knowing of the sameness of their needs to our own and also we note an assumed obligation to make them dependent upon us to get them what they need (Engster, 2006). Engster (2006) makes a point in that it would seem wrong to block the efforts of animals to fulfil their own needs and aims that humans share with them.

**Cultural and Social Analysis** The awareness of this public health issue insofar as it impacts not only innocent animals, but ourselves in the process leads us to see the futility in any abuse or cruelty, in inflicting physical pain and suffering. However, human beings as they are will always often only view and consider their ‘own’ cultural worlds firstly and fore mostly, trying to hold together their own interests before they will take the initiative and address the needs of other cultures. The worldviews of (non-human) animals and how their needs will be watched out for and secured, or at least given almost equal consideration to, therefore it is so important to know that there are so many groups in every country, on almost every level and for almost every non-human being that needs to be recognised in some way, shape or form. I shall name a few of the important groups that have something to say about animal rights and animal welfare. The BBC Ethics guide simply shows the difference between animal rights and animal welfare advocats: //‘Animal rights advocates are campaigning for no cages, while animal welfarists are campaigning for bigger cages.’//What each group is motivated toward is a grey line to be sure, but there is a clear delineation between what animal welfare and animal rights activists will be trying to maintain and fight for. Animal welfare activists (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Australian Animal Welfare Strategy Advisory Committee), are clearly in existence for the ‘welfare’ of animals while accepting animal exploitation and animal rights activists are in existence to promulgate almost autonomous rights as they are attributed to humans, also (BBC Ethics guide). There is substantial proof of the way that certain individuals will see the use of using animals in biomedical experimentation practices, such is Carl Cohen MD, of the University of Michigan Medical School, who will defiantly resist the idea that non-human animals will possess sentience and a will to show pain and suffering, he does not agree to the ‘rights’ of animals. Cohen goes on to say that //**"We must not infer, therefore, that a live being has, simply in being alive, a "right" to its life. The assertion that all animals, only because they are alive and have interests, also possess the "right to life" is an abuse of that phrase, and wholly without warrant."**// The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (Advisory Committee)//, regards this strategy as a 'human responsibility'// toward animals that comprises and embraces all animal health and well-being such as a humane handling and population control and when necessary, humane killing. They go on further to make sure it is understood that animal welfare, animal liberation and animal rights are not to be mixed in under one umbrella. This makes it very clear that they, while treatment of animals is to be somewhat controlled, they will not fight for the lives of animals to be experiemented on or to be slaughtered - as these are a mere means to an end for human profitability. The AAWAC are also said to have 'considered' the philosophical views and personal values of stakeholders who may even be animal liberation and rights advocates, but has indeed ignored or left out value statements that go agains what the AAWAC has deemed necessary for the benefit of humans and animals in Australia. PETA discusses and makes it plainly clear that animals have an inherent worth - that is - a value absolutely separate and apart from their use to humans (PETA, 2013). They (PETA, 2013) go on to say that the human characteristc of prejudice lets us deny the rights we have for others that we demand for ourselves, and saying that it is prejudiced based upon species that allows us to contemplate one animal as dinner and another as a companion. Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA said, //“When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”.//


 * Analysis of the Artifact and My Own Learning Reflections**

I thought the playing of the song by Sarah McLachlan would summon any deep and lingering feelings of having placed ourselves in the minds of these tortured and captive animals, and so cause us to look at their plight to be protected from harm by inflicting pain. Human beings are logical, academic, analytical and critical thinkers, and in saying that, aren't we also sensitive, emotional, compassionate and conscientious beings also? This call for an end to animal torment, cruelty and pain ought address this 'other side' of the human beings we are. Humans ought to connect and see what is happening to animals in any distress, by virtue of the fact that each of us do have conscience to delineate between humane treatment and inhumane treatment. I believe a case can most assuredly be made on the basis of seeking out, rescuing and preventing all harm to all animals wherever they are – simply for the fact that they by virtue of being alive, deserve the right to their life and to receive that which is deserving of all living creatures. Daniel Engster’s Care Ethics piece (2006), suggests we ought to show at least a sympathy to animals, maintaining it is morally compulsory to do so. Animals have an innate desire to survive, to function as that of which they were born and to avoid pain as much as we humans do (Engster, 2006). Doesn’t this make it obvious enough to take a second look?


 * //We can claim no great right over land animals which are nourished with the same food, inspire the same air, wash in and drink the same water that we do ourselves; and when they are slaughtered they make us ashamed of our work by their terrible cries; and then, again, by living amongst us they arrive at some degree of familiarity and intimacy with us. - Plutarch, Symposiacs, c. AD 100.//**
 * //(Preece, 1999).//**


 * Discussion**

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64696620
 * Comment 1:**

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/page/messages/MEET+YOUR+MEAT
 * Comment 2:**


 * References**

Animal Rights and Rescue Group of Far North QLD. [] BBC Ethics guide. []

Beef Central. []

Cohen, C. (1986). The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. //The New England Journal of Medicine, 315//(14), 865-870. doi:10.1056/NEJM198610023151405

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Australian Animal Welfare Strategy Advisory Committee. []

Engster, D. (2006). Care ethics and animal welfare. //Journal of Social Philosophy, 37//(4), 521-536. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2006.00355.x

Franklin, J. H. (2005). //Animal rights and moral philosophy//. New York: Columbia University Press.

Harfeld, J. (2013). Telos and the ethics of animal farming. //Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 26//(3), 691-709. doi:10.1007/s10806-012-9422-y

PETA. [] Preece, R. (1999). Animals and Nature//: Cultural Myths,Cultural Realities//. Vancouver, BC, CAN: UBC Press. p 18. []

Rollin, B. E. (2007). Animal mind: Science, philosophy, and ethics. //The Journal of Ethics, 11//(3), 253-274. doi:10.1007/s10892-007-9018-3

Singer, P. (2013). //In defense of animals//. Hoboken: Wiley

Würbel, H. (2009). The state of ethological approaches to the assessment of animal suffering and welfare. //Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 118//(3), 105-107. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.021