For Monday, read the essay by Steven Wise on pp. 194 -96 of WFS. Read carefully. I hope we will discuss the essay on Monday.
Write the introductory paragraph to an essay refuting or confirming Wise's argument. Remember that you aren't agreeing or disagreeing yet. Save that for the second paragraph. Use the following method to organize the paragraph:
1. "Hook" and then a transition to the next sentence. In this case, use some introductory anecdote that will set the tone of your argument later. You'll find plenty of them on the Internet.
2. Summarize the main argument. Don't forget to work in the authors' full
name and the title of the essay. I typical template for that first
sentence might be as follows. In [title of the essay], [author's full
name] [verb from the list in TSIS] that [the author's main argument/
thesis].
3. Summarize the supporting arguments, each in their turn. Use
transitions to indicate the flow of the argument and the fact that Wise and not you is arguing.
Here, you'll need to understand the underlying organizational principle
of the essay. Writers don't always make them obvious. Use your
understanding of that organizational principle to structure your
summary.
4. State the underlying principle present in Wise's essay -- the
idea that makes the argument go. You can think of it as the thesis, but
it is often unstated. Think of it as the idea that you will either
defend or refute in subsequent paragraphs in the body of an essay that
follows this introductory summary.
As usual, post the paragraph by Sunday evening at 5 PM.
Animal-Rights-Action.com reports that the Institute for Behavioral Research severed monkeys’ spinal nerves to permanently paralyze them. Then, the monkeys faced electric shock treatment and food deprivation. The electrocution was supposed to force the monkeys to use their disabled limbs. Animal testing is a controversial topic because some believe animal testing is necessary for developing medicines and treatments for humans. On the other hand, some claim that animal testing is unethical. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven Wise argues that animals should receive the same rights and freedoms as humans. First, Wise claims that autonomy is not necessary for basic legal rights, thus, animals should not be denied such rights. Then, he contends that believing animals lack autonomy and exist for the sake of human use is invalid. He utilizes two studies to show that animals have mental capabilities similar to humans. For example, a bonobo and 2-year-old human underwent language-comprehension tests that proved the high intelligence of bonobos. Jane Goodall’s study of apes also demonstrates that apes have emotional, mental, and reasoning capabilities similar to humans. Wise implies that humans should condemn torturing and experimenting on animals because humans and animals should be given the same rights.
ReplyDeleteIn American culture, pets are often treated as part of the family. These animals are adopted at any age, they are fed nutritious food, they are taught right from wrong, and most importantly, they are given love. In many ways, they are treated in the same ways as humans, but they are not given the same rights. Many science research institutes conduct painful animal testing, and many humans hunt animals for recreation. In contrast, humans are not subjects of biomedical testing or objects for hunting. Because people can talk and walk on two legs, many consider themselves as superiors of animals; however, if animals are given the same amount of love as people, many believe that they should be treated equally. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven Wise argues that animals should be given basic human rights. The author begins his claim by describing the ideals of classic philosophers, who classified a person with those who have autonomy, which animals do not. The author rejects the philosophical contention that nonhumans are not self-determined or have volition. Wise explains that over time, animals have “extraordinary minds.” Firstly, he gives an example of a study between a seven-year-old bonobo and a two-year-old human. The two were given several tasks, but only the bonobo was capable of performing the required tasks, while the human was left clueless. Furthermore, Wise explains that apes use insight, can form complex mental representations, act intentionally, and count. These actions are the same children who are still developing basic skills at ages three to five. Long ago, animals were not considered equal as humans, but after extensive research and studies it has been found that they have the same abilities and are given the same basic needs as humans. This is ultimately why Wise argues that animals should be given basic legal rights.
ReplyDeleteOne characteristic that differentiates a person from a thing is that a person has a soul and a thing does not, so if someone has a soul, do they deserve rights? There have been countless stories about animals that prove that they have souls. When a free diver cramped up in her legs in an arctic pool and could not move, it was a beluga whale that saved her life and guided her back to the top of the pool, without the animal, she would have died. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” by Steven M. Wise, he believes that animals deserve to have the same rights as human beings and deserve to be treated as if they were someone, and not something. Wise argues that according to the statistics collected by the Department of Agricultural, many animals are treated unfairly and killed painfully, whether it be from killing for sport, or from being held in a factory and later be slaughtered. Next, Wise makes an argument that there must be something that “entitles us to rights”, this argument was made by philosophers or judges. The first example that is made by Wise is the comparison between a little kid named Alia and seven year old bonobo. While Alia is a human, she could perform some of the tasks asked, and the bonobo could in fact perform these tasks, does this make bonobo more of a human than Alia? Secondly, Wise states that apes have almost all emotions that humans show, they can even recognize themselves when they look in the mirror. Apes use some of the insight humans do, problem solving, using mental maps, comparing objects and many other skills. The overall principle of this essay is that animals should be given rights, and Wise provides many different examples that could change this. Some animals have the same skills and maybe even more than humans do, and that could change the way that humans perceive them.
ReplyDelete“In the United States this year, tens of millions of animals are likely to be killed.” In Steven M. Wise’s essay, “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights”, he argues that animals should have the same legal rights as humans since they are no longer considered “things”. Wise explains different views on why we as humans have legal rights, he explains how one philosophers view is that humans have rights because we, “always act rationally.” Wise argues this point, stating that, “I don’t know anyone who always acts rationally.” Wise believes that animals are very intelligent and refers to Jane Goodall and her studies with apes, “In the 40 years since Jane Goodall arrived at Gombe, she and others have shown that apes have most, if not all, of the emotions that we do.” The underlying principle that Wise is trying to get across in this essay is that animals have emotions, are capable of making important descions, and because of this they should have legal rights similar to humans.
ReplyDeleteIn our society have rights is given only to one species, humans. Some animals may get rights after they have gone through horrendous amounts of abuse, or are on the brink of death. But the real question though, is it fair? Steven Mise writes asking the most important question in animals rights, do animals deserve the same rights as humans do. According to loveanimals.org, more than four million animals are euthanized every year, while one million are killed in testing labs. Mise states that many people believe animals were put on this earth for human use and therefore “lack autonomy.” What do you believe is right?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the ASPCA, it is estimated that 37-47% of all households in the United States have a dog, and 30-37% have a cat. Many of these households that own pets treat their animals as they would generally treat a human, but those animals do not have the same general rights. Also, livestock are treated very differently to those of house pets. The current laws do not protect animals in testing for all products, genetic testing or raised in large quantities in small spaces to be sold as profit to our supermarkets. Those unethical laws create a controversial discussion raised in all departments concerning animals if they have the right to have laws protect them. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven Wise argues why nonhuman animals deserve the same basic rights that humans have. Wise begins his essay by describing the law ignores them until a person decides to do something about them, but by the time people decide to help, nothing can be done in the situation. Next, he describes that philosophers and judges reject the conception of autonomy, and in general people thing that animals were put on earth for human use and lack autonomy. For years, research of animal behavior has been gathered that some nonhuman animals have extraordinary minds with examples that a 7-year-old bonobo named Kanzi and a human 2-year-old named Alia are tested in a series of language-comprehension tests. The tests show that both of the subjects struggle with understanding the speaker’s instructions in multiple tasks: Kanzi immediately complied to all of the tasks, whereas Alia did not understand what to do. Secondly, Wise provides an example of Jane Goodall’s research in Gombe, that apes have the most, if not all, emotions that human beings do; apes are self-conscious, pass the mirror self-recognition test, and use insight to solve problems, acting intentionally with tasks. Lastly, the author says that, “Twenty-first-century law should be based on twenty-first-century knowledge” (Wise 196). Especially with the change in law of the burning of witches and mute people lack intelligence, it is now illegal for both of those actions to be assumed. Today, animals and humans are a lot more similar than imagined before the prescientific age and labeled nonhuman animals as things. The abundance of evidence indicates that animals are much more than things, and deserve basic legal rights.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Columbus Zoo and Aquarium recently had a polar bear deliver a baby cub who abandoned shortly after by her own mother. Instead of leaving the cub on her own, the zoo took matters into their own hands. By hiring a 24 hour staff of pseudo moms to hand feed, play with and nurture the cub, the Columbus Zoo gave one of few polar bear cubs left in this world a fighting chance. The Columbus Zoo shows that animals should be taken care of as if they were people. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven Wise argues that animals deserve to have the same rights that humans do. In his first argument, Wise states that autonomy is a not a necessity for humans to receive basic legal life implying that animals should not be denied the same rights. To defend his reasoning, Wise uses two studies that inform the reader of animal’s mental capacities. Another valid argument that is presented in the essay is that animals have many of the same emotions that we as humans have. The underlying principle of Wise’s essay is that animals possess many qualities that entitle them to basic rights. Wise uses numerous examples and studies that convince the reader to believe his argument is correct.
ReplyDeleteIn our society people tent to think that only humans have rights. In the short essay “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights”, author Steven M. Wise argues that animals should have the same legal rights with humans. Wise argues goes against the belief of a philosopher who claims that “humans always act rationally”. The writes states that that claim is not true, saying “I do not know anyone who always acts rationally”. He refers to Jane Goodall and her studies that show that animals are very intelligent.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Animal Equity over 56 billion farmed animals are killed every year by humans. In the essay “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven M. Wise argues why animals deserve basic legal rights. First, animals are not things and therefore deserve rights. Secondly, autonomy does not confirm a person’s legal rights, and therefore, animals should be allowed legal rights. Next, he denies the belief that animals exist for the purpose to serve humans because animals can’t “perceive, conceive, reason, remember, believe, even experience (Wise).” He denies this belief because an experiment because apes and other animals have most of the emotions that humans do. They have the ability to use insight, solve problems, teach, deceive, and empathize with others. He uses evidence from a case study done with a bonobo and a human. The two year old bonobo was able to comprehend tasks better than the two year old human. In conclusion, Wise compiles many arguments that prove why animals deserve legal rights and why the use of violence and torture should be condemned.
ReplyDeleteAnimals, some are known as mans best friend, life savers and even used to protect this country. believe it or not some animals even risk their lives in military, police work and other forms of the armed forces. So, I ask myself should animals, despite the fact that they have an extra hand or more hair than us, keep them from having the same liberties and privileges that humans do ? Well, to answer that question you have an essay written by Steven Wise called:" Why Animals Should Have Human Rights" in which he makes a point that " the right to have everything is what makes living worth while" Wise also makes a valid point in which he says that animals are a non human species with no human rights, who aren't really thought about until someone decides to do something to them. Wise is ultimately saying that if we can give them human rights now, we can avoid waiting until they are too hurt or too violated to do anything for.
ReplyDelete“In the United States this year, tens of millions of animals are likely to be killed, sometimes painfully, during biomedical research” (Wise, 194). In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven M. Wise argues the validity of why animals deserve legal rights just as much as humans do. Wise opens by discussing autonomy, or self-determination. He supports this by disputing the well known thought that animals were put on Earth just for mankind's uses and they lack autonomy. Next, Wise brings forth an example of how animals, a bonobo for example can be more intelligent than humans. He discusses how a 7 year old bonobo preformed various tasks much easier and better than a 2-year old human. He continues by stating that animals know more than humans give them credit for. That animals, apes in particular for Wise, understand cause and effect, and act intentionally just like humans. Wise concludes his essay by stating that 21st century law should be based on 21st century knowledge. That since mankind knows animals have thoughts and feelings, the laws should change to encompass them as well, much like was done in early history for burning “witches.” Wise brings forth many valid statements on why animals deserve legal rights just like humans do.
ReplyDelete“Many people have believed that they [animals] were put on earth for human use and lack autonomy” (Wise 195). In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven M. Wise argues that it is time for our society to acknowledge the fact that animals deserve rights and freedoms, just like humans. Firstly, he argues that animals are treated poorly and killed painfully in many situations. Such as, the use of animals in biomedical research and for the entertainment of humans. Secondly, Wise describes the criteria needed in order to consider an animals worthiness of autonomy. The criteria was put into place by philosophers and is looked down upon by Wise. Wise shows that animals are not on this planet at a humans disposal. He uses two studies to explain how animals have developed minds that are similar to those of a human and therefore rejects the philosophers claim. The first study Wise uses is about a bonobo and a 2 year old human. Both underwent a series of language- comprehension tests. The results showed the bonobo’s mind was more developed and he was able to complete the tasks better than the 2 year old human. The second study was performed by Jane Goodall. She discovered that the apes “use insight, not just trial and error, to solve problems . . . they form complex mental representations . . . they understand cause and effect” (Wise 196). Many of the abilities that these apes had are things human children can’t comprehend until they are between the ages of 3 and 5. Animals have never been given the same rights and freedoms that humans have, but now with all of the new studies that show how similar they are to humans, and how complex their minds are, animals deserve the same basic legal rights. As Wise says, “twenty-first-century law should be based on twenty-first-century knowledge” (Wise 196).
ReplyDeleteIn a society where animals are severely mistreated, disrespected, and present in the human diet, one must question, "is the treatment of animals barbarism?" In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven M. Wise addresses his concern for the treatment of animals, and argues that they deserve legal rights. To start off, he brings up the reality that in the united states, tens of millions of animals will be killed for research, ten billion will be killed for food, and many more fish will also be killed, all of which are deemed "perfectly legal." Next, he goes onto explain the philosophers and judges explanation as to why humans have legal rights, unlike animals. They believe that the main distinguishing factor between people and animals is the ability to act autonomously. Many people believe that animals were "put on earth for human use and lack autonomy." However, Wise argues that some animals have been proven to have "extraordinary minds." To go further, he highlights Jane Goodall's experience with the apes to strengthen the claim that animals have all of the emotions that humans do, act intentionally, and can complete complex tasks, such as counting. Wise believes that the conception that animals are not worthy of rights is extremely outdated, as they have proven many times to be much more complex than what society once thought.
ReplyDeleteSaying someone doesn’t deserve rights is something humans have done to African Americans, Jewish and other people deemed undeserving of rights. Now we have deemed animals, man’s best friend, undeserving of rights. In the essay “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” by Steven M. Wise, its discussed why animals deserve rights. Wise writes about how animals’ rights are ignored by law makers because they are not humans. Some say that They don’t deserve rights like humans because humans “are made in the image of God.” and animals aren’t. Wise argues that this claim isn’t sufficient enough to not allow animals rights and many philosophers and judge today would agree with him. Another counterargument to his claim Wise brings up is autonomy. He explains the autonomy isn’t enough to deny legal rights to animals. “We don’t eat or vivisect babies born without brains, who are so lacking in sentience that they are operated on without anesthesia.” Wise brings up how over the years of studies we have found pout that many animals, such as primates, are very similar to humans. They are able to show all the emotion we do and also understand our language. With all of the new knowledge we have learned over the past few years, our laws do not reflect it. Our laws should be updated to protect the other living creatures we share our world with.
ReplyDeletePets are often known as members of a family, and sometime even called brother or sister by some. Although animals can be known as a part of family, they are not always treated as one would treat a family member. Animals are often seen expressing some kind of emotion, which generates feelings of humans that animals should have certain rights. In “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights” Steven Wise argues that animals should be given legal rights. Wise defends his argument when he states, “Unfortunately for animals, many people have believed that they were put on earth for human use and lack autonomy” (Wise 195). Wise also uses Jane Goodall as a source. He says, “She and others have shown that apes have most, if not all, of the emotions that we do” (Wise 196). He is getting the point across that just because these creatures are not human, they should still have rights. He also believes that this generation as a whole is an intelligent one. He explains that when he says, “Twenty-first century law should be based on twenty-first century knowledge” (Wise 196). He is using the intelligence factor to show that humans have the capability to prove the manner in which animals show emotion, are smart, and should be capable of receiving rights.
ReplyDeleteIt is time for animals to obtain legal rights. In Steven M. Wise’s essay “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” the author defied the current legal system by demonstrating why animals should be counted as equals under the law. While humans have the rights to freedom, safety from torture, and even life itself, millions of animals does not. This rose to the question of what are the criteria that allows human to have such basic rights but animals do not have. In the case of religion, many believe that animal does not have the equal right of human simply because “humans are made in the image of God,” (Wise, 194) and animals are not. The author quickly counter argued this statement by stating that simply being human does not granted us the entitlement. Throughout the history, philosophers and legal thinkers argue that the most important criterion is autonomy. Philosopher Kant believed that autonomy means acting rationally, but many rejected this idea stating that human cannot act rationally most of the time. Philosopher such as Aristotle and Stoics believe that autonomy means mental abilities to perceive, conceive, reason, remember, believe and experience, and those are things that animals cannot do. But for decades, evidences have shown that non-human animals have extraordinary minds such as knowing how to follow instructions and solve problems. The author concluded his argument by pointing out that we had flaws in our legal systems that took many periods of time to change for the better. It is essential for the law to evolve with current, and grant rights to animals one step at the time.
ReplyDeleteIn "Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights", Steven Wise argues (vaguely) on the nature of the Justice system to drive home his thesis that Animals deserve legal rights (he does not mention to what degree) as humans have. His argument builds around philosophies that differentiate humans from animals, he cites a scientific study showing that the most commonly held philosophy - that humans are superior for their cognition and conscience - is untrue. In the study, a two year old child is made to compete a 7 year old bonobo chimp. He concludes that the chimp has cognitive abilities that better the child's. Therefore, he heavily implies that since the child is given legal rights, the chimp should be too. In his conclusion is where his method is most obvious - he writes "twenty-first century law should be based on twenty-first century knowledge". Only by this validation does his argument make sense!
ReplyDeleteParagraph #11
ReplyDeleteAccording to the World Wide Fund for Nature, an estimated two thousand species go extinct every year. This astronomical number has risen in the last century, due to the industrialization of the food market, supplying billions of people with food world wide. Amidst all of this carnage, very few people have questioned whether or not any of this is morally correct. However, in his essay “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” Steven M. Wise argues that animals are more then just food, and that they should be given rights that would be recognized in a court of law. Wise begins his essay using a series of statistics that reveal the bloody truth of how humans have treated animals in the past, and in the present 21st century. He points out how most humans typically characterize animals as food, not rational thinking beings who should be treated in a more humane way. He then provides examples of how philosophers, monks, and judges alike have tried to justify humanities behavior towards animals. In other words, what is the difference between humans and animals that makes the mass slaughter of animals in exchange for food a justifiable course of action. Although opinions varied amongst philosophers and judges as to what that difference was, the majority of them believed it to be autonomy. Humanities ability to use rational thought is what separates it from the rest of the “food chain.” Contrary to popular belief, Wise argues that animals are in fact capable of forming intricate thoughts and ideas, disproving the widely accepted idea that animals are incapable of thought or feeling. Using an experiment made by biology professor Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, at Georgie University, Wise provides detailed examples in which a two-year-old bonobo successfully comprehends information that humans are capable of understanding only once they have reached d the age of five. He explains how the bonobo are capable of forming intricate mental maps of their surroundings, as well as learning through trial and error, as well as past experiences. In addition, they are capable of using, even building their own tools. To conclude is essay, Wise expresses his opinion that 21s center law should be adapted to the increasing amounts of data regarding the intelligence of non human living creatures. Animals are far more complex than we humans once thought and according to Wise, our behavior towards them ought to change.
In "Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights", Steven Wise states that, animal rights deserve the same equality as human beings. Humans have equal rights, wether it's your gender, your race, sexuality, disability etc.. In part of his paragraph, he focuses on people with mental disabilities having equality. (Steven, 528)"We apply it even to people who by reason of retardation or other mental disability cannot enforce their own rights but need a guardian to do it for them.”He specifically talks about chimpanzees, and the bonobos being similar to us genetically, therefor they should have legal rights. (Steven, 528) "Wise wants to merge these legal streams by showing that the apes that are most like us genetically, namely the chimpanzees and the bonobos, are also very much like us in their mentation, which exceeds that of human infants and profoundly retarded people.” Meaning that just because animals can’t speak up, doesn't mean we shouldn't take action. You would speak up for someone with a learning disability, so why don't people take a stand for animals?
ReplyDeleteIn the year Steven M. Wise wrote an article called “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” the Department of Agriculture of the United States predicted that tens of millions of animals would be killed for biomedical research. Tens of millions may seem to be a good number to shock people; however, it is a number which by far underrepresents the whole incidents of animal abuse, which include “manufacturing” animals for human consumption or violence done by individuals. In his article, Wise argues that animals should be granted legal rights, for some of them have been proven to be capable of performing so-called “human abilities,” such as linguistic comprehension and emotional intelligence. He asserts that today’s laws should reflect the contemporary scientific knowledge about animals.
ReplyDeleteIn a poll done on Gallup.com, almost a third of americans, 32% believe that animals should be given the same rights as people. 62% say they deserve some rights but still can be used for the benefit of humans. Only 3% believe that they deserve no rights. In Steven Wise's article "Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights," Wise argues that animals deserve the same equality us humans get. He states that we treat humans with disabilities with the same equality as humans without disability. Wise also argues that for decades animals have been shown to have extraordinary minds. An example of this is the bonobo "Kanzi,"who was shown to have a much easier time than a 2 year old in executing simple commands with logic. Although there will always be skeptics on animals and human rights the evidence is piling up to form an argument that they do in fact deserve these rights.
ReplyDeleteChickens are slaughtered by the millions everyday to feed our insatiable lust for poultry. However, does this mean that animals should be afforded equal rights. Whichever way you choose to look at this argument, there is no denying that fact that human beings are far superior to animals in an evolutionary sense. Due to this superiority, we have been able to govern and set rules for ourselves. Animals, who have been around far longer then human beings, have yet to establish their own government. As such, human beings take the role as the apex predator of society. We are the ultimate top of the food chain, and no other apex predator (lions, bears, tigers) are affording their prey “rights”. In this world, it is eat or be eaten, and we as human beings have invented effective ways to streamline the predation process. By affording animals human rights, we become the only predator with mercy for it’s prey.
ReplyDeleteAnimals should not get rights,yea I feel like justice should take place when a pet is being harmed notice how I said pet, to give animals right will change a lot how people eat,live,maybe even attitude. Families all over the world have been brought up eating a lot of meat on the other hand it's also a lot of families that are vegetarians. More percentage of the country eat meat an that will never change,giving animals rights will make companies go up on prices for meat because the company's prices to get animals will go up. Going up on the meat price will make people go berserk,it's like feeding your dog,if you feed your dog steak everyday an for one week try an feed your dog cheep can dog food, watch how much less your dog eat that week. What I'm getting at is humans and animals have been living this way for I don't know how long but to change how we process the food and giving animals rights I don't see that changing even if we had laws,maybe here and there but not all around the world.
ReplyDeleteHistory has proven that it is human nature to prejudice and suppress things unlike ourselves. Humans have always found a way to deny someone or something basic human rights. Although, in the past it may have been related to race or religion, nowadays we have a new form of this denial of rights that is brought up in Steven Wise’s “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights.” Wise believes that animals should have similar rights as human beings. He argues that it has been proven that animals can understand language and feel emotions similar to humans. He supports his belief by giving an example of a study done to compare the ability of a two year old child in comparison to a seven year old Bonobo chimp. Contrary to what many might expect, the chimp out preformed the child thus making Wise conclude that the chimp had better cognitive abilities. He adds that if animals have similar or superior cognitive capabilities than they should at least be given the same rights as humans. Wise believes that with all of the recent studies that have been done give evidence that animals are more similar to humans than previously believed and as a reflection of such new knowledge their rights should be similar to humans as well.
ReplyDelete