Animales En El Entretenimiento
Páginas: 6 (1463 palabras)
Publicado: 3 de marzo de 2013
Fuente: http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_index.php?page=24 Animals in Sports and Entertainment Summary: Should human beings be allowed to use other animals as objects of sport and entertainment? Introduction Author:Thomas Dixon ( United Kingdom ) Dr. Thomas Dixon is research fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge. Created: Friday, June 30, 2000 Last Modified: Wednesday, April 08, 2009print this page Discuss topic
Pros All forms of sport and entertainment that exploit non-human animals should be banned; animals, like us, can feel fear, stress, exhaustion, and pain. To use animals for our own amusement, whether hunting them for sport or making them perform for us, is demeaning to ourselves as well as to them. Being a species with a great amount of power and control over otherspecies brings with it a responsibility not to abuse that power. Using animals in sports and entertainment is an abuse of our position of responsibility and brutalises society towards animals and nature.
Cons All cultures throughout history have used animals in the context of sport and entertainment, from Roman chariot racing up to present day hunting, racing, and circuses. The issue here isnot whether or not we can use other species for our own purposes - we can and it is only natural the issue is animal cruelty, which everyone can agree should be ended. The proposition needs to demonstrate that the practices they are referring to are cruel - it is not enough to appeal to vague principles such as animal rights. There are two categories of activity that are acceptable: first, killinganimals that are pests or that are going to be eaten; and secondly, using animals in enjoyable human sports in ways that do not involve cruelty. Hunting and fishing are natural activities many other species in the wild kill and eat each other and there is no reason why we should be any different. These sports are always undertaken for a rational reason and are never gratuitous - they are either toexterminate pests or to provide food. In the case of foxes they are pests. Most of the alternative ways of killing them are more cruel - e.g. trapping, snaring, or shooting, which often have the end result of maiming the fox and leaving it to die slowly of starvation and infection. A fox killed by
It is very easy to take up the opposition's challenge to provide concrete examples of cruelty toanimals - there are many. Take the case of 'blood sports'. All sorts of hunting, shooting, and fishing boil down to slaughtering other animals for pleasure. If the prey is a pest (e.g. foxes), or needs culling (e.g. hares, deer), there are always more humane ways to kill it than hunting it to the point of terror and exhaustion with a pack of hounds- e.g. killing it with a rifle shot. If the prey isbeing killed for food it is entirely gratuitous. In modern society
people do not need to kill food for themselves but can buy it from a source where animals have been killed humanely; indeed no-one needs to eat meat at all and for moral, health, and environmental reasons they should not (see vegetarianism debate). As for fishing, again there is absolutely no need to catch or eat fish; evenwhen anglers throw their catch back in they have first put a hook through its palate.
hounds dies instantaneously. In the case of killing animals to eat - such as fish, or game birds such as pheasants and grouse - the justification is even more straightforward; it is the most natural activity in the world to hunt and eat. And given the controversy surrounding the welfare of animals in modernfarms, it would seem preferable to eat an animal that had had a free and happy life in the wild than one that had been reared in a factory farm. In the case of fishing, many anglers who fish for sport throw their catches back in, so the fish come to no lasting harm. We need to strike a balance between human pleasure and animal welfare. The proposition's point of view is much too unbalanced. Putting...
Pros All forms of sport and entertainment that exploit non-human animals should be banned; animals, like us, can feel fear, stress, exhaustion, and pain. To use animals for our own amusement, whether hunting them for sport or making them perform for us, is demeaning to ourselves as well as to them. Being a species with a great amount of power and control over otherspecies brings with it a responsibility not to abuse that power. Using animals in sports and entertainment is an abuse of our position of responsibility and brutalises society towards animals and nature.
Cons All cultures throughout history have used animals in the context of sport and entertainment, from Roman chariot racing up to present day hunting, racing, and circuses. The issue here isnot whether or not we can use other species for our own purposes - we can and it is only natural the issue is animal cruelty, which everyone can agree should be ended. The proposition needs to demonstrate that the practices they are referring to are cruel - it is not enough to appeal to vague principles such as animal rights. There are two categories of activity that are acceptable: first, killinganimals that are pests or that are going to be eaten; and secondly, using animals in enjoyable human sports in ways that do not involve cruelty. Hunting and fishing are natural activities many other species in the wild kill and eat each other and there is no reason why we should be any different. These sports are always undertaken for a rational reason and are never gratuitous - they are either toexterminate pests or to provide food. In the case of foxes they are pests. Most of the alternative ways of killing them are more cruel - e.g. trapping, snaring, or shooting, which often have the end result of maiming the fox and leaving it to die slowly of starvation and infection. A fox killed by
It is very easy to take up the opposition's challenge to provide concrete examples of cruelty toanimals - there are many. Take the case of 'blood sports'. All sorts of hunting, shooting, and fishing boil down to slaughtering other animals for pleasure. If the prey is a pest (e.g. foxes), or needs culling (e.g. hares, deer), there are always more humane ways to kill it than hunting it to the point of terror and exhaustion with a pack of hounds- e.g. killing it with a rifle shot. If the prey isbeing killed for food it is entirely gratuitous. In modern society
people do not need to kill food for themselves but can buy it from a source where animals have been killed humanely; indeed no-one needs to eat meat at all and for moral, health, and environmental reasons they should not (see vegetarianism debate). As for fishing, again there is absolutely no need to catch or eat fish; evenwhen anglers throw their catch back in they have first put a hook through its palate.
hounds dies instantaneously. In the case of killing animals to eat - such as fish, or game birds such as pheasants and grouse - the justification is even more straightforward; it is the most natural activity in the world to hunt and eat. And given the controversy surrounding the welfare of animals in modernfarms, it would seem preferable to eat an animal that had had a free and happy life in the wild than one that had been reared in a factory farm. In the case of fishing, many anglers who fish for sport throw their catches back in, so the fish come to no lasting harm. We need to strike a balance between human pleasure and animal welfare. The proposition's point of view is much too unbalanced. Putting...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.