Nakiro
04-30-2004, 08:07 AM
Need some help finalizing some grammar spelling puncutation errors in my paper ( I can never catch them all). If I have fewer then five I get an A on the paper basically, and that's an A for the class.
With that said, all help is appreciated. Here is the paper. Oh its due by 4 o'clock est.
Ethics Paper: Is it Right to Compromise Animal Welfare for the Sake of Food?
Written by Erik Byrwa
English 203 Business Writing
In his novel The Jungle, Upton Sinclair depicts a harsh world of existence for thousands of immigrant and native Chicago workers as they face the corruption of American industry in the early twentieth century. In the slums of Packingtown, residents are pitted against one another for jobs within slaughtering houses; jobs that are often highly underpaid, overworked, and incredible unsafe. Through his literature, Upton Sinclair exposed the meatpacking industries for its atrocities in the treatment of workers and the sanitation of its products.
Thankfully, today the meatpacking industry is heavily monitored to insure the quality and safety of meats. Likewise, workers rights have gained leaps and bounds in rights and securities. Minimum wage, worker’s compensation, the eight hour work day, child labor laws, and the development of unions are all examples of changes made to insure the safety of workers, and not just in the meatpacking industry but in all fields. But one question still remains: what about the animals?
Through his experience as a worker, Jurgis shares with us a graphic view of the cruel and barbaric practices imposed by the slaughterhouses in creating meat products. Unlike worker’s rights or meat sanitation guidelines, there has been very little reform in pre-slaughter treatment of industrial animals. Instead industrialization has taken its role in producing factory farms where animals are produced in mass for slaughter, often compromising their safety and welfare which we are ethically obligated to fulfill.
Ask yourself this question, “Is it right to compromise animal welfare for the sake of food?”. Some might think this question is silly, or that the answer is obvious. In American society today, many people have become accustomed, or some may even claim dependent, on their carnivorous dietary habits. Every year Americans consume literally hundreds of millions of pounds in animal products such as beef, pork, chicken, dairy, and eggs. Usually this occurs with little or no concern about the welfare of the animals slaughtered for such a lifestyle.
There are hundreds of possibilities why any individual might act with such disregard. Perhaps they simply enjoy the taste of these products so much that they are afraid to consider giving them up, or maybe the idea of cruelty to animals is too offensive to contemplate, or maybe, in some cases, they just don’t know any better. Inevitably though, in order to answer the question, “Is it right to compromise animal welfare for the sake of food?”, such things must be considered.
The sad truth is that for animals that are unfortunate enough to be born into factory farms, abuse isn’t just a common occurrence; it is a way of life. While virtually any animal that is factory farmed will experience abuse in one form of another, for space purposes this article will only cover the treatment of pigs as evidence to the barbaric and unethical practices of factory farming.
Within eight days of birth, piglets experience two or three very painful events. In order to prevent damage to the sow, and later damage to other pigs, piglets will have their teeth cut at the tips. This is done in order to preserve the sow‘s teats so she is more suitable for nursing. Sows in factory farms will birth and nurse far more piglets than any would in the wild (McGrinn 106).
Normally this procedure is performed by cutting only the tips of the teeth to minimize pain, though, because most caretakers are paid by their workload, it isn’t uncommon for teeth to be cut much higher toward the gums. This exposes highly sensitive nerve tissue that can become infected, or remain open and painful until the time of slaughter. Regardless of how it is performed the event is very stressful on the pig (Gregory, 165).
Should the pig be male, it will have the displeasure of experiencing castration without the comfort of painkillers. This is done to promote the quality of pork by decreasing hormones in male pigs that cause aggressive behaviors, which damage other pigs, thus lowering the quality of meat, and to prevent a condition known as boar taint. This condition results in meat that, when cooked, emits an unpleasant sour aromas similar to sweat, pig fecal matter, or urine (Gregory, 168).
Shortly after the docking of the teeth comes the docking of the tail. Tail docking in animals outside of factory farms is usually for ascetic purposes and is almost always unnecessary. It is commonly performed on dogs of various breeds shortly after birth when the body of the animal is least sensitive, but in the case of piglets it isn’t uncommon for docking to occur up to eight days after birth.
Factory farmed pigs may spend most or all of their natural lives indoors under artificial light. Noise levels within pig housings are often extremely loud, usually ranging between ninety to one hundred decimals, with an increase of ten decimals during feeding time. In comparison, workers who are exposed noise exceeding ninety decimals for more than four hours are required by law to be provided hearing protection (Gregory, 166).
Under the worst of conditions, pigs are subjected to intolerably low levels of stimulation through a practice called crating. Pigs will usually enter these crates within a six weeks after birth. This is done to prevent them from being crushed by the sow, or by other larger pigs. Here they will remain together as a liter until they are large enough to be separated and fed from normal feeding troths and placed in their own separate crates (Rollin 91).
Many factory farms use this technique of housing pigs and other animals in order to conserve space and protect animals from combating each other. Pigs left in confinement typically faces highly levels of stress from their human caretakers due to physical abuse, and because of this they are more aggressive and hostile towards other pigs. This aggression is not only bad for the health of the pigs, but it also damages the meat, making it less suitable for sale (Gregory, 170).
Additionally crating also makes feeding, storing, and managing very easy, resulting in lower costs of wages from unskilled laborers. Transporting pigs from farming to slaughter is also easier, as the crates are easy to load and unload onto cars. This increases worker safety considerably. However, the need for crating to insure worker’s safety is self-perpetuating. While in confinement, pigs are generally mistreated or abused, sometimes not being fed for days at a time, and often without any social stimulation. Instead, the only human interaction they receive is generally abusive, making them more hostile to humans, thus necessitating the need for crating during transportation (Gregory 171).
Unlike milking cows or chickens, pigs are considered to be fairly intelligent animals, and as such they require more social and intellectual stimulation than other factory-farmed animals. However, over ninety percent of all pigs raised for US consumption will live the majority of their lives confined in crates. While sizes and settings vary, most crates are less than three and a half feet wide, three and a half feet tall, and six feed long. These dimensions give pigs little to do other than look at what is immediately in front of them. Any movement other than lying down is restricted, including turning around, rolling, or scratching (Rollins 73).
In response to a severe lack of stimulation, most pigs will develop locomotor sterotypies. These are conditions where pigs undertake extreme abnormal behaviors that tend to be repetitive or violent in nature. This can include bar chewing, crate banging, screaming, violence towards other pigs, and cannibalism. Once pigs begin to exhibit signs of sterotypies they begin to lose preferences between a caged life and a more environmental rich hay box life. The reason why isn’t exactly clear. Some scientists speculate that pigs no longer care about their environmental conditions, while others think they can no longer tell the difference. Either way, as stated by John Webster in his book Animal Welfare, “Neither explanation leaves us with a clear conscience. Locomotor sterotypies are a sign that something is wrong.” (Webster 84).
The ethical epicenter of the question lies in three simple words, “Is it right?”. Like all ethical questions though, ultimately the answer will depend on what an individual perceives as “right”. What obligation do humans owe to other species, if any? How should we define these obligations, and in what way should animals be defended when these requirements aren’t fulfilled? While there are no absolute answers to these questions, perhaps an examination of the laws in place to protect other animals would help draw a conclusion.
Historically, obligations among peoples and their governments have been referred to as “civil rights”. To be absolutely clear, a person’s right to freedom is speech is an agreement between that person and all people under his government that such a person would be granted to speak at any time, least his actions be harmful to another person: that government’s obligation to him is to protect this freedom. In this regard, rights themselves become privileges, not inherited undeniable truths.
Because of this, the basis of rights is rooted in the laws set forth by any governing body, as that body is responsible for making and fulfilling all obligations between itself and it’s people. However, the necessity for people to develop such rights amongst themselves is one motivated by the urge to do what is good. This development of civil rights within civil unions demonstrates that people know the difference between right and wrong. Thus rights, while privileges, are created out of ethical necessity.
From the term civil rights came the term “animal rights”. The term itself has been around for quite some time, but it received the most press during the animal rights campaign in the seventies. In definition, the term is very similar to civil rights, but instead of obligations defined among peoples and the government, the third party of animals is introduced. While what constitutes animal rights varies from institution to institution, for the terms of this paper it shall be limited to the obligation between people, their government, and animals to provide animals with safety from physical abuse and cruelty.
While some activists claim animals are ethically entitled to rights, others disagree vehemently. In writing Animal Rights Debate, author Carl Cohen defends the absence of animal rights by stating, “Animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of right is essentially human; it is rooted in the human moral world and has force and applicability only within that world,” (Cohen, 30). He argues that the very foundation of rights depends on the communication and agreement of peoples, and since this relationship does not exist between humans and animals, animals are not entitled to such obligations. If this is true though, why is it that the United States government has legislated any protection to animals at all? Perhaps an examination of these laws would better help to draw an answer.
Although laws on animal cruelty vary from state to state, Kentucky’s law poses as a good model for what other states impose. According to section 525.130, cruelty to animals is defined as, “cruel or injurious mistreatment through abandonment, causing [an animal] to fight for pleasure or profit, mutilation, beating, torturing any animal, tormenting, failing to provide adequate food, drink, space, or health care, or by any other means subjecting any animal to cruel neglect” (Francione).
In the field of national law, the United States Congress first took a major step to insuring the safety of domesticated and wild animals through the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. Since its enactment, it has been amended four times, lastly in 1990. As of the most recent amendment, Congress addressed the need for the act by stating, “The Congress further finds that it is essential to regulate, as provided in this chapter, the transportation, purchase, sale, housing, care, handling, and treatment of animals by carriers or by persons or organizations engaged in using them for research or experimental purposes or for exhibition purposes or holding them for sale as pets or for any such purpose or use,” (US National Agricultural Library).
However, as stated in section 2132.g the document defines the term “animal” to exclude, “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,” (US National Agricultural Library).
Reviewing the language of the Congressional Animal Welfare Act we see that, “Congress finds its essential...”. In retrospective to our definition of rights, we know that laws are created out of an ethical urge to do what is good. In this particular instance, not only is it important to protect the welfare of animals, it is essential. But how can there be an essential urge to do what is right in one instance, yet in another very similar instance it is completely absent?
If laws are in place to protect wild and domesticated animals from abuse, why do we not extend such laws to afford some protection to animals raised for butchering? Legislators argue that the increased cost for raising the standard of the treatment of stock animals ultimately will be pushed onto consumers, but should our morality be limited by our budget? Is it not hypocritical to deny a pig that is intended for slaughtering at least some measure of the same protection as one used for companionship? Undoubtedly the pig intended for slaughter will eventually die in the production of a good, but how can the United States Congress find it essential in one instance, and not even concerning in another?
In reflection of the original question, “Is it right to compromise animal welfare for the sake of food?”, I find it doubtful that any argument could justify our current double standard of commercial and non-commercial animals. As human beings, creates bestowed with the ability to define the difference between right and wrong, it is unfathomable that we could so poorly neglect the needs of our animal companions. For some the challenge of the question doesn’t lie within answering it, but justifying that answer. As fellow consumers of meat, dairy, and poultry products, I would challenge any person to consider the ethical impact of answering yes.
EDIT: Tried to make it more reader friendly.
EDIT: I don't care about your opinion on the content, other than logical errors that exist.
[Edited on 4-30-2004 by Nakiro]
[Edited on 4-30-2004 by Nakiro]
With that said, all help is appreciated. Here is the paper. Oh its due by 4 o'clock est.
Ethics Paper: Is it Right to Compromise Animal Welfare for the Sake of Food?
Written by Erik Byrwa
English 203 Business Writing
In his novel The Jungle, Upton Sinclair depicts a harsh world of existence for thousands of immigrant and native Chicago workers as they face the corruption of American industry in the early twentieth century. In the slums of Packingtown, residents are pitted against one another for jobs within slaughtering houses; jobs that are often highly underpaid, overworked, and incredible unsafe. Through his literature, Upton Sinclair exposed the meatpacking industries for its atrocities in the treatment of workers and the sanitation of its products.
Thankfully, today the meatpacking industry is heavily monitored to insure the quality and safety of meats. Likewise, workers rights have gained leaps and bounds in rights and securities. Minimum wage, worker’s compensation, the eight hour work day, child labor laws, and the development of unions are all examples of changes made to insure the safety of workers, and not just in the meatpacking industry but in all fields. But one question still remains: what about the animals?
Through his experience as a worker, Jurgis shares with us a graphic view of the cruel and barbaric practices imposed by the slaughterhouses in creating meat products. Unlike worker’s rights or meat sanitation guidelines, there has been very little reform in pre-slaughter treatment of industrial animals. Instead industrialization has taken its role in producing factory farms where animals are produced in mass for slaughter, often compromising their safety and welfare which we are ethically obligated to fulfill.
Ask yourself this question, “Is it right to compromise animal welfare for the sake of food?”. Some might think this question is silly, or that the answer is obvious. In American society today, many people have become accustomed, or some may even claim dependent, on their carnivorous dietary habits. Every year Americans consume literally hundreds of millions of pounds in animal products such as beef, pork, chicken, dairy, and eggs. Usually this occurs with little or no concern about the welfare of the animals slaughtered for such a lifestyle.
There are hundreds of possibilities why any individual might act with such disregard. Perhaps they simply enjoy the taste of these products so much that they are afraid to consider giving them up, or maybe the idea of cruelty to animals is too offensive to contemplate, or maybe, in some cases, they just don’t know any better. Inevitably though, in order to answer the question, “Is it right to compromise animal welfare for the sake of food?”, such things must be considered.
The sad truth is that for animals that are unfortunate enough to be born into factory farms, abuse isn’t just a common occurrence; it is a way of life. While virtually any animal that is factory farmed will experience abuse in one form of another, for space purposes this article will only cover the treatment of pigs as evidence to the barbaric and unethical practices of factory farming.
Within eight days of birth, piglets experience two or three very painful events. In order to prevent damage to the sow, and later damage to other pigs, piglets will have their teeth cut at the tips. This is done in order to preserve the sow‘s teats so she is more suitable for nursing. Sows in factory farms will birth and nurse far more piglets than any would in the wild (McGrinn 106).
Normally this procedure is performed by cutting only the tips of the teeth to minimize pain, though, because most caretakers are paid by their workload, it isn’t uncommon for teeth to be cut much higher toward the gums. This exposes highly sensitive nerve tissue that can become infected, or remain open and painful until the time of slaughter. Regardless of how it is performed the event is very stressful on the pig (Gregory, 165).
Should the pig be male, it will have the displeasure of experiencing castration without the comfort of painkillers. This is done to promote the quality of pork by decreasing hormones in male pigs that cause aggressive behaviors, which damage other pigs, thus lowering the quality of meat, and to prevent a condition known as boar taint. This condition results in meat that, when cooked, emits an unpleasant sour aromas similar to sweat, pig fecal matter, or urine (Gregory, 168).
Shortly after the docking of the teeth comes the docking of the tail. Tail docking in animals outside of factory farms is usually for ascetic purposes and is almost always unnecessary. It is commonly performed on dogs of various breeds shortly after birth when the body of the animal is least sensitive, but in the case of piglets it isn’t uncommon for docking to occur up to eight days after birth.
Factory farmed pigs may spend most or all of their natural lives indoors under artificial light. Noise levels within pig housings are often extremely loud, usually ranging between ninety to one hundred decimals, with an increase of ten decimals during feeding time. In comparison, workers who are exposed noise exceeding ninety decimals for more than four hours are required by law to be provided hearing protection (Gregory, 166).
Under the worst of conditions, pigs are subjected to intolerably low levels of stimulation through a practice called crating. Pigs will usually enter these crates within a six weeks after birth. This is done to prevent them from being crushed by the sow, or by other larger pigs. Here they will remain together as a liter until they are large enough to be separated and fed from normal feeding troths and placed in their own separate crates (Rollin 91).
Many factory farms use this technique of housing pigs and other animals in order to conserve space and protect animals from combating each other. Pigs left in confinement typically faces highly levels of stress from their human caretakers due to physical abuse, and because of this they are more aggressive and hostile towards other pigs. This aggression is not only bad for the health of the pigs, but it also damages the meat, making it less suitable for sale (Gregory, 170).
Additionally crating also makes feeding, storing, and managing very easy, resulting in lower costs of wages from unskilled laborers. Transporting pigs from farming to slaughter is also easier, as the crates are easy to load and unload onto cars. This increases worker safety considerably. However, the need for crating to insure worker’s safety is self-perpetuating. While in confinement, pigs are generally mistreated or abused, sometimes not being fed for days at a time, and often without any social stimulation. Instead, the only human interaction they receive is generally abusive, making them more hostile to humans, thus necessitating the need for crating during transportation (Gregory 171).
Unlike milking cows or chickens, pigs are considered to be fairly intelligent animals, and as such they require more social and intellectual stimulation than other factory-farmed animals. However, over ninety percent of all pigs raised for US consumption will live the majority of their lives confined in crates. While sizes and settings vary, most crates are less than three and a half feet wide, three and a half feet tall, and six feed long. These dimensions give pigs little to do other than look at what is immediately in front of them. Any movement other than lying down is restricted, including turning around, rolling, or scratching (Rollins 73).
In response to a severe lack of stimulation, most pigs will develop locomotor sterotypies. These are conditions where pigs undertake extreme abnormal behaviors that tend to be repetitive or violent in nature. This can include bar chewing, crate banging, screaming, violence towards other pigs, and cannibalism. Once pigs begin to exhibit signs of sterotypies they begin to lose preferences between a caged life and a more environmental rich hay box life. The reason why isn’t exactly clear. Some scientists speculate that pigs no longer care about their environmental conditions, while others think they can no longer tell the difference. Either way, as stated by John Webster in his book Animal Welfare, “Neither explanation leaves us with a clear conscience. Locomotor sterotypies are a sign that something is wrong.” (Webster 84).
The ethical epicenter of the question lies in three simple words, “Is it right?”. Like all ethical questions though, ultimately the answer will depend on what an individual perceives as “right”. What obligation do humans owe to other species, if any? How should we define these obligations, and in what way should animals be defended when these requirements aren’t fulfilled? While there are no absolute answers to these questions, perhaps an examination of the laws in place to protect other animals would help draw a conclusion.
Historically, obligations among peoples and their governments have been referred to as “civil rights”. To be absolutely clear, a person’s right to freedom is speech is an agreement between that person and all people under his government that such a person would be granted to speak at any time, least his actions be harmful to another person: that government’s obligation to him is to protect this freedom. In this regard, rights themselves become privileges, not inherited undeniable truths.
Because of this, the basis of rights is rooted in the laws set forth by any governing body, as that body is responsible for making and fulfilling all obligations between itself and it’s people. However, the necessity for people to develop such rights amongst themselves is one motivated by the urge to do what is good. This development of civil rights within civil unions demonstrates that people know the difference between right and wrong. Thus rights, while privileges, are created out of ethical necessity.
From the term civil rights came the term “animal rights”. The term itself has been around for quite some time, but it received the most press during the animal rights campaign in the seventies. In definition, the term is very similar to civil rights, but instead of obligations defined among peoples and the government, the third party of animals is introduced. While what constitutes animal rights varies from institution to institution, for the terms of this paper it shall be limited to the obligation between people, their government, and animals to provide animals with safety from physical abuse and cruelty.
While some activists claim animals are ethically entitled to rights, others disagree vehemently. In writing Animal Rights Debate, author Carl Cohen defends the absence of animal rights by stating, “Animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of right is essentially human; it is rooted in the human moral world and has force and applicability only within that world,” (Cohen, 30). He argues that the very foundation of rights depends on the communication and agreement of peoples, and since this relationship does not exist between humans and animals, animals are not entitled to such obligations. If this is true though, why is it that the United States government has legislated any protection to animals at all? Perhaps an examination of these laws would better help to draw an answer.
Although laws on animal cruelty vary from state to state, Kentucky’s law poses as a good model for what other states impose. According to section 525.130, cruelty to animals is defined as, “cruel or injurious mistreatment through abandonment, causing [an animal] to fight for pleasure or profit, mutilation, beating, torturing any animal, tormenting, failing to provide adequate food, drink, space, or health care, or by any other means subjecting any animal to cruel neglect” (Francione).
In the field of national law, the United States Congress first took a major step to insuring the safety of domesticated and wild animals through the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. Since its enactment, it has been amended four times, lastly in 1990. As of the most recent amendment, Congress addressed the need for the act by stating, “The Congress further finds that it is essential to regulate, as provided in this chapter, the transportation, purchase, sale, housing, care, handling, and treatment of animals by carriers or by persons or organizations engaged in using them for research or experimental purposes or for exhibition purposes or holding them for sale as pets or for any such purpose or use,” (US National Agricultural Library).
However, as stated in section 2132.g the document defines the term “animal” to exclude, “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,” (US National Agricultural Library).
Reviewing the language of the Congressional Animal Welfare Act we see that, “Congress finds its essential...”. In retrospective to our definition of rights, we know that laws are created out of an ethical urge to do what is good. In this particular instance, not only is it important to protect the welfare of animals, it is essential. But how can there be an essential urge to do what is right in one instance, yet in another very similar instance it is completely absent?
If laws are in place to protect wild and domesticated animals from abuse, why do we not extend such laws to afford some protection to animals raised for butchering? Legislators argue that the increased cost for raising the standard of the treatment of stock animals ultimately will be pushed onto consumers, but should our morality be limited by our budget? Is it not hypocritical to deny a pig that is intended for slaughtering at least some measure of the same protection as one used for companionship? Undoubtedly the pig intended for slaughter will eventually die in the production of a good, but how can the United States Congress find it essential in one instance, and not even concerning in another?
In reflection of the original question, “Is it right to compromise animal welfare for the sake of food?”, I find it doubtful that any argument could justify our current double standard of commercial and non-commercial animals. As human beings, creates bestowed with the ability to define the difference between right and wrong, it is unfathomable that we could so poorly neglect the needs of our animal companions. For some the challenge of the question doesn’t lie within answering it, but justifying that answer. As fellow consumers of meat, dairy, and poultry products, I would challenge any person to consider the ethical impact of answering yes.
EDIT: Tried to make it more reader friendly.
EDIT: I don't care about your opinion on the content, other than logical errors that exist.
[Edited on 4-30-2004 by Nakiro]
[Edited on 4-30-2004 by Nakiro]