As this class continues to move forward and we read more and more differing perspectives, I'm getting a bit torn. On one hand there is Peter Singer who wants animals to be liberated; to end all animal suffering and death. He also believes that animals have the right to not suffer. Then we read Pollan's chapter about hunting, which essentially said that hunting is part of who we are, it's in our genes. He also recognizes the community that food creates during holidays or special events. For example, the baseball game hot-dogs, the thanksgiving turkey or the Christmas ham. Bernstein's article threw another wrench into the melting pot of viewpoints. He is completely against hunting and proved his points well. He gave numerous examples of how hunting negatively affected wildlife and ecosystems. He completely convinced me that hunting isn't necessary; the biological systems can and will take care of themselves. This week we read The Animal Rights Debate by Tom Regan and Carl Cohen. Cohen argues that animals don't have rights but we, as moral agents, have obligations to animals. Cora Diamond says that both animals and humans are "travelers between life and death", one in the same.
So what I'm trying to figure out is which viewpoints I agree with most ... How we treat animals is very important to me as a pet owner and as a knowledgeable consumer. I want to have a strong argument and a strong understanding of why I think something is right or wrong. It's difficult to find a right or correct answer that I can faithfully stand behind. I'm sure that as I learn more, I'll slowly develop my own combination of opinions and beliefs. Time will tell...
No comments:
Post a Comment