Lies (people believe) About Animals

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Lies (people believe) About Animals file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Lies (people believe) About Animals book. Happy reading Lies (people believe) About Animals Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Lies (people believe) About Animals at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Lies (people believe) About Animals Pocket Guide.

They have become a network of cults, unwilling to listen, reason, or compromise.

Lie loudly and often and many people will believe you. We are seeing that every day in America. Most reporters are too lazy or busy to check things out and are happy to quote anyone with an outrageous or emotional statement. Journalists quote officials and institutions, rarely people. We learned in November that they have lost touch with the country.

Truth takes more time. Almost nothing I heard or read from the animal rights groups was true. They simply made up what they could not prove and replaced old lies with new ones when they were debunked. Their spokespeople defined shameless. Lying did not trouble them in any visible way. I was not looking for this or happy to see and hear it.

It was a shock to me. Truth matters, and when we stop caring about truth, the alternative is anarchy and suffering. Their statements about the carriage horses — and Ringling Brothers — was either an outright lie, an unsubstantiated allegation, or a distortion designed to raise money and manipulate emotions. The people of New York rejected these untruths and the carriage trade is safe, at least for now. But the people in the carriage trade have suffered greatly from harassment and abuse and cruelty. They have done nothing wrong, and yet they live in perpetual fear. That is not my idea of liberty.

No court or police agency or reputable institution has found them guilty of any kind of wrongdoing.

It is by now apparent that a fundamental strategy of the animal rights movement is to dehumanize its targets, to demonize people as cruel and abusive, as living beings that are less than human. Once this is accomplished, it is fairly simple to drive them from the moral community of institutions and people. Politicians, like corporations, run from trouble.

If you attack someone often enough, they will run. Two different police investigations found that the ponies were well cared for and healthy, but the City Council panicked and withdrew her contract of more than 20 years. It is not clear if she will be able to keep her ponies. Or Joshua Rockwood , a farmer from Glenville,N. Two different veterinarians testified his animals were healthy and well cared for. My water tanks froze also, so did the toilets in the Glenville Town Hall.

He nearly lost his farm. I am proud to say he is now my friend. Tawni Angel was accused of nothing and convicted of nothing, and lost her livelihood and the ponies may lose their lives. They are helpless when attacked. This is the now familiar story of the sadly successful attack on Ringling Bros. This notion — that animals must be removed from people — threatens the well-being of every animal lover and domesticated animal in America. The circus won every single one of the many and expensive lawsuits filed against it. Do our legal system and traditions and due processes no longer have any meaning or relevance when it comes to the animal world?

What is justice for the elephants and the workers in the circus when they can be libeled and defamed at will and have their way of life, security and property taken from them by vigilante social mobs? Any trainer, veterinarian, behaviorist will testify that working animals like elephants and carriage horses and working dogs suffer greatly when they are torn from their familiar environments and human connections and left to stand in small enclosures for the rest of their lives with nothing to, no stimulation, exercise or purpose. Working animals without work become disoriented, their muscles atrophy, they develop illnesses and behavioral problems.

The idea of the wild has become emotionalized beyond reality. The animals who work with responsible people are among the luckiest animals on the earth. It is not, to me, a crime when animals lift up people, entertain them, and make them laugh. Are we supposed to get our spirits lifted by the news? Or by angry messages on Facebook? Uplifting people is among the noblest traditions of the animal world, what an awful shame to make it a crime, or to equate it with real abuse.

Our society seems to be getting grimmer and more Puritanical all the time. And what were the Pilgrims, after all, except politically correct? I hope to not live in a joyless world without magic, the demise of the circus will make that much more difficult. I tremble a bit for my granddaughter, who will never know the smells and sounds and feelings and drama of the circus. These doomed circus workers are not people who choose this kind of work to torture and abuse animals.

But as it stands 7 is not a case of lying.

Ethics for A-Level - Chapter Telling Lies - Open Book Publishers

That is what 5 , the maths case, shows us. You intend that your Gran adopt the false belief that you do like the jumper. So for something to be a lie, what is important is the intention to deceive — but it need not be the case that what is being said is false. It is then a genuinely interesting question which deserves consideration at some point — just not here.

When, if ever, is it morally acceptable to intend for someone to adopt a belief which you know to be false?

Lies (People Believe) about Animals

In particular, an action is right if, and only if, it brings about the greatest amount of happiness, pleasure, well-being, preference satisfaction etc. So we cannot say that lying is wrong because the action of lying will only be wrong if it brings about less good than not doing so. If I intend that you adopt a belief which I believe to be false but in so doing I generate more good than if I had not, then I have done something right.

In this case people believe that she was right to have lied; given the horrific consequences of telling the truth she is morally required to lie. However, the intuitions work both ways and there are cases where we think that sometimes it is morally counterintuitive to be required to lie. Imagine a scenario where there has been a serious crime in a town and the Sheriff is trying to prevent serious rioting. He knows that this rioting is likely to bring about destruction, injury and maybe even death.

The problem is that he has no leads; he has not the slightest idea who committed the crime. However, he can prevent these riots by lying to the town and framing an innocent man. No one will miss the man and he is hated in the town. If he frames and jails this innocent man, convincing people to believe that it was this man that committed the crime, then the town will be placated and people will not riot. The consequentialist will judge in this case that it is morally required that the Sheriff lies even if this means that an innocent man is jailed.

This then shows that the fact that the consequentialist says it is sometimes morally required to lie can lead to counterintuitive conclusions. If lying to your gran brings about the best consequences — i. Notice, however, that the consequentialist would say that we ought to lie; not just that it is acceptable to lie but that we have a moral obligation to lie.

Consider the sheriff example; it could be that the real criminal confesses resulting in worse consequences than if the truth had been told at the outset. Now, not only will there be riots but there will also be no trust in the law enforcement. So, in fact, lying would bring about worse consequences, which means it would be wrong to lie.

If your brother tells his gran that you lied, then we can imagine that this might mean she would not be able ever to trust her grandchildren again, may give up knitting, and thus make her unhappier than if she had originally been told the truth about the jumper. So rather than first defining good and then defining the right and wrong actions they first define right and wrong. How they might do this will depend on what type of deontologist they are. The Kantians ground the rightness and wrongness on reason. We can show, using this, that Kant — and in fact all deontologists — think that the action of lying is wrong in all cases.

Even if the consequence is saving a billion people, your own mother or an orphanage of children. Kant said that we should always treat others as an end in themselves, and never solely as a means to an end. We can see that this makes lying wrong. For if we lie to someone then we are not treating them as an end in themselves but are controlling what they can do by taking certain decisions out of their hands; we are basically saying we should be allowed to deceive them for our own ends.

We are not treating them as rational agents and for the Kantian this is always morally wrong. However, it is perhaps less so if we revisit our definition of lying. Go back to the soldier case. Imagine she is being tortured for military codes. It seems that one way to stop the consequence that hundreds of thousands of people die would be simply to say nothing. And, given our definition, saying nothing would not be lying. So the Kantian may not be committed to the implausible conclusion that she has to reveal the secrets.

Keeping silent is not the same as lying. Even so, it seems undeniable that there are some cases where we think it is morally acceptable to lie but for the Kantian there are no such cases. Other deontological theories would as well. For example, the Divine Command Theory, the theory that says that actions are right or wrong depending on whether God commands or prohibits them.

Account Options

If God says lying is wrong — and at least in the main monotheistic religions He does — then it is, full stop. Or consider the Catholic theologian Aquinas. Whether you agree with his policies or not, what has been interesting is how the presidential campaign has been run; in particular, it has put under serious doubt our initial claim above, namely, that lying in public office is something to be avoided at all costs.

We do not mean is it true, because it is patently false. We mean do you think the concept of a lie has changed throughout time?

References

Has the political landscape changed so dramatically that the concept of lie has no currency? It will to the more than 30 animals you save each year. All together, Americans ate million fewer animals last year than we did just five years ago. Times are changing. Protein is abundant in plant foods.

The end. Not even close. Over 95 percent of animals raised and killed for food live miserable lives on factory farms: crowded, filthy facilities where animals are crammed in tiny cages, mutilated without painkillers, and ruthlessly slaughtered. Watch this. What about peanut butter or chocolate?