essay how to treat animals kindly

Essay on Be Kind to Animals

Students are often asked to write an essay on Be Kind to Animals in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Be Kind to Animals

Importance of kindness.

Animals are a crucial part of our ecosystem. They deserve respect and kindness just like humans.

Ways to Show Kindness

We can show kindness by providing food, water, and shelter to animals. It’s also important to not harm them, physically or emotionally.

Benefits of Being Kind

Being kind to animals helps us develop empathy and compassion. It also helps maintain a balanced ecosystem.

Remember, every creature has a role in our world. Let’s respect and be kind to them.

Also check:

• Paragraph on Be Kind to Animals

250 Words Essay on Be Kind to Animals

Introduction.

Kindness towards animals is a virtue that is not only ethically upright, but also has profound implications on our own humanity. The way we treat animals is a reflection of our empathy and compassion, two traits that are fundamental to our coexistence.

Animals’ Role in the Ecosystem

Animals play a pivotal role in maintaining ecological balance. They contribute to biodiversity, aid in pollination, and serve as a food source for other species. Disrespecting animals can disrupt these natural processes, leading to adverse effects on the ecosystem.

The Ethical Argument

From an ethical standpoint, animals, like humans, have the right to live free from suffering. Animal cruelty is a blatant violation of this right. By being kind to animals, we uphold the principles of fairness and justice, demonstrating our recognition of their intrinsic value.

Psychological Implications

Psychological studies suggest a positive correlation between kindness to animals and empathy towards fellow humans. Those who treat animals with kindness are often more empathetic, understanding, and cooperative. Hence, promoting kindness to animals can contribute to a more compassionate society.

In conclusion, being kind to animals is not just about animal welfare; it’s about preserving our ecosystem, upholding ethical standards, and nurturing our own humanity. By fostering a culture of kindness towards animals, we can contribute to a more compassionate, empathetic, and just society.

500 Words Essay on Be Kind to Animals

Kindness towards animals is not just a virtue but a responsibility that we, as the most intelligent species on the planet, must uphold. Their inability to communicate their needs and emotions like us does not make them any less deserving of compassion, respect, and love. This essay will explore the importance of being kind to animals, the implications of our actions, and how we can foster a more compassionate society.

The Ethical Imperative of Kindness

The moral compass of a society can often be gauged by its treatment of the voiceless and vulnerable. Animals, regardless of whether they are pets, farm animals, or wild creatures, are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering. Just as we recognize the need for kindness and empathy towards our fellow humans, it is equally crucial to extend the same courtesy to animals. Our ethical imperative to be kind to animals is a reflection of our commitment to empathy, respect, and justice.

Environmental Implications

Our actions towards animals have far-reaching implications on the environment. Industrial farming practices, for instance, often prioritize productivity over animal welfare, leading to inhumane conditions and significant environmental damage. By choosing to support ethical farming practices, we can contribute to reducing the environmental footprint of our food choices. Similarly, the preservation of wildlife through conservation efforts is integral to maintaining biodiversity and ecological balance.

Psychological Benefits of Kindness to Animals

Being kind to animals can also have profound psychological benefits. Interactions with animals have been shown to reduce stress, anxiety, and depression. Pets offer companionship and unconditional love, while wildlife encounters can inspire awe and a sense of connection with nature. These experiences can foster empathy, compassion, and a greater sense of responsibility towards all living beings.

Creating a Compassionate Society

Promoting kindness to animals can have ripple effects on society. It can encourage empathy, respect for life, and a sense of responsibility towards the welfare of other beings. Schools and educational institutions can play a crucial role in this by incorporating lessons on animal welfare and ethics into their curriculum.

Moreover, legislation that protects animals from cruelty and exploitation is essential. However, laws can only work well if societal attitudes change as well. Each of us has a role to play in fostering a culture of kindness towards animals, whether it’s through our consumer choices, advocacy, or everyday interactions with animals.

In conclusion, being kind to animals is not just about treating them well. It’s about recognizing their inherent worth and right to a life free from suffering. It’s about making choices that reflect our values of compassion, respect, and justice. And most importantly, it’s about creating a society where kindness towards all sentient beings is the norm, not the exception. As Mahatma Gandhi famously said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” May we all strive to be kind to animals and, in doing so, become better humans ourselves.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Be Grateful
• Essay on Be a Good Listener
• Essay on Basketball

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

American Dream turned deadly

Just one family’s history – and the world’s

Digging into the Philippines Collections at the Peabody Museum

Illustration by Katie Edwards

‘There they are, on our dinner plates’

Manisha Aggarwal-Schifellite

Harvard Staff Writer

Philosophy professor’s book asks humans to rethink their relationships with animals

In her new book, “Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals,” Arthur Kingsley Porter Professor of Philosophy Christine Korsgaard makes the case that humans are not inherently more important than animals and therefore should treat them much better than we do.

Korsgaard, Ph.D. ’81, has taught at Harvard for almost 30 years and is an expert on moral philosophy. The book is a departure from her previous theoretical work on moral philosophy, as it deals with more practical ethical questions.

Drawing on the work of Immanuel Kant and Aristotle, she argues that humans have a duty to value our fellow creatures not as tools, but as sentient beings capable of consciousness and able to have lives that are good or bad for them.

The Gazette spoke to Korsgaard about her book, the future of animal rights, and writing accessible philosophy.

Christine Korsgaard

GAZETTE:   What made you decide to pursue this topic?

KORSGAARD:   Western moral philosophy is now more than 2,000 years old, and in all of that time very few moral philosophers have said anything about the treatment of animals. Animals are sentient beings and some are capable of interacting with us, but on the other hand there they are, on our dinner plates, pulling our wagons, hunted by us, and made to fight with one another for our amusement. It just seems like an obvious moral issue, and yet moral philosophers haven’t often asked questions like: Is this all right? Why is it OK to do these things?

I’ve had a personal belief for a long time that we should be treating other animals better and in particular that we shouldn’t eat them. I’ve been a vegetarian for more than 40 years and a vegan more recently. At the same time, I’m an advocate of the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who celebrates the value of humanity and rational nature and is one of the few philosophers to have said right out, “We have no duties to the other animals and we can use them however we please.” So I was trying to understand how to put these different positions together.

GAZETTE:   This is a personal subject for you, so was your approach to writing this different from your previous work?

KORSGAARD:   Writing about practical questions is really difficult. People talk as if the way you solve a practical problem is that you take a theory and then just apply it to a case, but it’s not like that. It takes a lot of work to put the whole battery of ideas involved in a theory to work on a practical question. In that sense, the book represents a kind of work I haven’t done before, at least not to this extent.

GAZETTE:   Were there issues that were particularly challenging for you to write about?

KORSGAARD:   One difficult thing was to articulate a position in the face of knowing that there’s a passionate but often inadequately argued objection out there to what I’m saying. If I say, “We shouldn’t experiment on animals, because we have no right to use them as mere means to our ends,” that will be met with a heated defense of the practice. People say, “We should never give that up, because it does so much good to humans.” To me that doesn’t seem to meet the point, so I am at cross-purposes with my opponents.

Another difficult thing about this book was to get the audience properly in focus. I wanted to make a book that nonphilosophers could understand and think about, at least if they are willing to bear down a little on the arguments, but I also wanted to convince my colleagues in philosophy that there’s a serious philosophical topic here.

“Some people think that humans are just plain more important than other animals. I ask: More important to whom?”

GAZETTE:   “Tethered importance” or “tethered goodness” is an integral element of your book. Can you explain more about that?

KORSGAARD:   The idea of good or importance being “tethered” is based on the idea that anything that is good is good for someone; anything that is important is important to  someone. Kant’s idea is that when we pursue things that are good for us, we in effect make a claim that those things are good in an absolute sense — we have reason to pursue them and other people have a reason to treat them as good as well, to respect our choices or pursue our ends. But if we think that way, we have to say that things that are good or bad for any creature for whom things are good or bad, including animals, are good or bad in an absolute sense.

Some people think that humans are just plain more important than other animals. I ask: More important to whom? We may be more important to ourselves, but that doesn’t justify our treating animals as if they’re less important to us, any more than the fact that your family is more important to you justifies you treating other people’s families as if they are less important than yours.

GAZETTE :  With the growing popularity of “impossible” plant-based meat and meat grown from animal cells, do you think more people are coming to a moral realization about how to treat animals?

More like this

Raising the profile of animal law to match the stakes

Brainy birds

KORSGAARD :   I’m not very optimistic about people coming to care more about animals and what’s good or bad for them. But the issue of how we treat animals overlaps with two issues that people care a lot about, even if it’s only for the sake of human beings: climate change and biodiversity. Factory farming is one of the major causes of global warming, and biodiversity is something people are concerned about too, even if [just] for the sake of having a healthy environment for human beings.

If we got rid of factory farming, that would help animals. Biodiversity is related to that too because one of the main reasons why so many species are dying out is because of lack of habitat caused by factory farming in general and the production of meat. Many people care about the preservation of species, but that’s not the same as treating individual animals in an ethically correct way. But thinking about these issues has brought attention to the ways that we treat animals, and so there’s some room for hope that people will think more about these things.

This interview has been condensed and edited for length and clarity.

Share this article

You might like.

He just needs to pass the bar now. But blue-collar Conor’s life spirals after a tangled affair at old-money seaside enclave in Teddy Wayne’s literary thriller

Claire Messud’s autobiographically inspired new novel traces ordinary lives through WWII, new world orders, Big Oil, and rise and fall of ideals 

Filipino American archivist offers personal perspective to exhibit

When should Harvard speak out?

Institutional Voice Working Group provides a roadmap in new report

Women who follow Mediterranean diet live longer

Large study shows benefits against cancer, cardiovascular mortality, also identifies likely biological drivers of better health

Had a bad experience meditating? You're not alone.

Altered states of consciousness through yoga, mindfulness more common than thought and mostly beneficial, study finds — though clinicians ill-equipped to help those who struggle

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Abuse

How People Should Treat Animals Essay Examples

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Abuse , Violence , Animal Abuse , Animals , Pets , Treatment , Torture , Bullying

Words: 2000

Published: 02/17/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

<Student’s name> <Professor’s name>

Introduction As it known, the recent issue of cruelty to animals is particularly acute. Many countries have adopted laws to protect animals; animal cruelty is a criminal offense. Thus, according to the social opinion, a person must not only prevent animal abuse, but also take care of them. But is it not dangerous – to concern excessively for animals? On the one hand, animal abuse is an act of cruelty which must be punished, but on the other hand, the excessive treatment sometimes can harm animals even not lesser than abuse.

In this report, the problem of animal abuse and excessive concern about them will be discussed.

Animal Abuse The issue of animal cruelty is long overdue. In fact, the world is full of cruelty and violence, but if a person is at least able to seek help, can somehow protect themselves, aware of their rights, the animals are deprived of such opportunities. Every now and then the stories about animal cruelty reveal, there are a variety of materials in the media, world wide web, which confirms that it is worth to think seriously about what animal rights protection and promotion of humane treatment of animals needed today as never before. Protecting the rights of animals is required, the animals, of course, have the right to be guarded against abuse, harassment or inappropriate content, as a result of which they suffer. Animals - this is not material for the spending allowance for experimental or scientific experiments. Unfortunately, many people who give birth to animals, do not realize that this is not mere entertainment. The cruelty to animals must be stopped, because just like humans, animals feel pain, the attitude towards them. But some individuals can simply take it out on the poor animals for their personal failures or bad mood. In addition, pet owners do not realize the responsibility they take on when they decide to shelter themselves a pet. Many cats and dogs on the streets because their owners got bored with the old toys. Humane treatment of animals is not known so the owners. Get a pet for fun, some forget that these animals need care. As a result, often the animals that were on the street, or are killed because they are not adapted to living in such conditions, if they grew up in an apartment, or altogether euthanized. Because animals need to be protected from such irresponsible owners. Millions of animals have never known the humane treatment by their own masters. So, unfortunately, there are cases where, for example, animal cruelty is evident in the fact that the birds are locked in small cells, inhospitable, and the latter are only a beautiful interior decoration. Animals have to live in deplorable conditions, limitation of movement, mud, and even at all - hunger. It is terrible to think how many animals subjected to abuse by people. And yet, all of that in these cases can the law do about animals - it's fine the offender. Sure, the fight against violations of the law to protect the rights of animals from abuse should be strengthened. Humane treatment of animals is a must. After all, if a person acquiring a pet, expect to find in him a friend for many single people pets - this is the only way to not feel alone. But why do people sometimes forget that animals need our care and protection? Sometimes there are strange and incomprehensible changes - once the pet becomes a burden to their owners when sick or old. For example, a dog who all his life faithfully served his master, can become useless when it becomes weak. People live in a civilized society, and cruelty to animals is just not compatible with the concepts of humanity and morality. Each of us, in the treatment of animals should be regulated not only by the law of the animals, but also their own morals. Animal protection should be a priority for every self-respecting man. Modern society often refers to an unprecedented abuse and cruelty to animals. Previously, the only form of animal cruelty, the media coverage was the mistreatment of circus animals. Today, thanks to the efforts of NGOs, people will learn more information and statistics about the ill treatment of animals. Outrage over the animals, called experiments on animals - the biggest danger, discovered in recent years. In 2006, the Council on Ethics for animals at the Ministry of Justice in Denmark found that the sexual relationship between man and dog is not subject to prohibition and can not be considered cruel treatment, except in cases where such a relationship demonstrates openly or animals used for the filming of pornography and sex show. Only one of the ten members of the Council opposed the decision. A deputy from the right Danish People's Party, Christian Hansen was shocked by the decision, demanding to bring this issue to a referendum. According to a study of the Fund for the Protection of Animal Rights in the United States in five states of the country the punishment for animal abuse "is not consistent with the values ​​of American society." According to Broom, D.M.,“in 2009 in the U.S. there were 832 cases of cruelty to animals. of ill- treatment of animals used for providing information online source. States such as Florida (68 cases), California (50 cases) and Pennsylvania (51 cases) were the leaders in the number of cases of animal cruelty” (10). It also have been found different ways of cruelty to animal. A recent report by non-governmental organizations reported that research laboratories do not fulfill the rules and regulations for animals. Some of those facts about the mistreatment of animals in laboratories are dire. Cruelty to animals is a fairly common phenomenon among laboratory workers. Animals suffer ill-treatment, for example, they poured water pressure hoses, they have a variety of harmful chemicals and bleaches. Animals were forced to swallow a variety of chemicals to conduct testing. This practice is carried out under the name of animal experiments, it is illegal and unethical, as well as other forms of animal cruelty. Prevent cruelty to animals is possible by taking the necessary measures. The following is information about the various forms of animal cruelty. There are many laws against cruelty and animal welfare programs that exist in all states and U.S. territories. These laws prohibit the abuse, torture, beating, mutilation and unnecessary killing of animals. They also include neglect, refusal or withdrawal of the animals with food, water and shelter. There are many organizations that have been established in order to monitor the animal cruelty and take action against violators. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an animal rescue agencies, animal shelters, etc., investigating cases of animal abuse. If these agencies do not have the police or sheriff's department may take appropriate action. Once it has gathered enough evidence, the prosecution filed a local, regional or federal attorney. According to the U.S. legislative history of Welfare Act, “the primary federal law relating to animal care and conditions in the US is the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, amended in 1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, 2002 and 2007. It is the only Federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act as the minimum acceptable standard” (23)

Excessive Care of Animals

According to Caroline Hewson, “Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of animals.” But some people harm animals in their longing to make animal welfare being perfect. Most of the problems with excessive care of the animals cause the pet owners. Most owners are often lightly to care for a pet and do not care about the daily routine pet. The most important role in the life of a pet plays his diet. Many people are overfed animal that causes him obesity and heart problems. Some just do not bother to clean up after him, and walk in timely manner. This is leading to unsanitary conditions at home and increases the risk of infectious diseases for animal. Pets are almost always different from their homeless relatives groomed appearance. But it should known that excessive care of a pet can have an adverse effect on his health. It's no secret that homeless animals are taking baths in the rain jets. This fact makes one wonder whether or not pets frequent water treatment? Veterinarians are often advised not to bathe the pet as it significantly lowers the immune system. Especially dangerous frequent water treatments using special detergents that simply destroys the protective function of the skin. Most cats are clean animals are considered. Therefore, cats rarely bathed, and the complete absence of water treatment does not prevent them stay clean. But dogs are less cleanly, so from time to time require bathing. But the use of special shampoos is relevant only if the dog get covered in something far from sanitary norms and it comes from simply unbearable stench. In other cases it is sufficient to wash the pet's usual clean under running water. Special mention deserves the nail clipping animals. By the way, cats are able to independently remove dead skin and nails in need of human assistance only in the event of illness or old age. But dogs need grooming claws every two weeks. Carefully inspect the animal's claw clearance – only the dark part can be cut. Another important aspect of the harm of excessive pet care are unskilled workers of humannity services for homeless or wild animals. Not every volunteer for working with such animals. The fact that the care of wild or stray animals in the first place, remember that sooner or later the animal is likely to have to let go at will, into the wild. Excessive concern about the animal may cause blunting of the natural instincts of the animal. Caught in the wild, the animal may not be able to find their own food or to survive in the cold - and all because it is already used to getting food from human hands and live in warmth. Professional vets know how to deal with these animals, so their work is very important.

In this essay has been discussed how people should treat animals. On the one hand, animals abuse is a cruel action and must be prevented and punished, but on the other hand, the excessive care is also harmful. The schools need to teach children how they can deal with animal cruelty. Above all, children need to know about animal rights, and that cruelty to animals is illegal. Kindness and compassion towards animals - the most important factor. Some children enjoy the activities related to the torture of animals. Such behavior is harmful not only to animal suffering, but also the people who interact with these children. Animals, like humans, suffer from abuse. If a child understands this, he will most likely be suspended from such actions, and will also discourage people who do this. People should know this to know, how care about animals better.

Works Cited

Arluke, Arnold. “Brute Force: Animal Police and the Challenge of Cruelty”, Purdue University Press (August 15, 2004), hardcover, 175 pages, ISBN 1-55753-350-4. An ethnographic study of humane law enforcement officers. Lea, Suzanne Goodney (2007). “Delinquency and Animal Cruelty: Myths and Realities about Social Pathology”, hardcover, 168 pages, ISBN 978-1-59332-197-0. Lea challenges the argument made by animal rights activists that animal cruelty enacted during childhood is a precursor to human-directed violence. Munro H. (The battered pet (1999) In F. Ascione & P. Arkow (Eds.) “Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse”. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 199–208. Hewson, Caroline J. (2003). "What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences". The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 44 (6): 496–9. PMC 340178. PMID 12839246. Broom, D.M., (1991). “Animal welfare: concepts and measurement”. Journal of Animal Science, 69(10): 4167-75 "Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act". PDF, Retrieved 7 April 2010. Brown, Congressman G.E. (1997). “30 Years of the Animal Welfare Act”. Animal Welfare Information Center Bulletin 8: 1-2, 23.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 576

This paper is created by writer with

ID 270493163

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Sociology business plans, proton essays, living thing essays, milk powder essays, provitamin essays, mother board essays, space shuttle essays, billy joel essays, choreographing essays, woodside essays, contender essays, peggs essays, wever essays, boise essays, hackler essays, monte carlo essays, eagle mountain essays, intelligence tests essays, interculturalism essays, carol oates essays, cliffnotes essays, character analysis essays, infidel essays, example of research paper on policies to mitigate advanced persistent threats, report on a flow chart of the tool setup and cnc program check 2, internet copyright infringement research paper sample, example of the economic development in western europe article review, cerebrovascular accident course work examples, business case study home depot essay sample, the early warning system of rinderpest disease essay examples, free essay on dead movie by jhonny depp related to william blake poet, wc 814 report example, free research paper on interpretation of statistical significance of a study, critical thinking on critical response on gilles deleuzes the diagramme and michel foucaults panopticism, good example of why is slack important to the project manager 100 words essay, example of the organic coup essay, law and legal liability essay sample, good essay on allports study of values, emergency management essays examples 2, government intervention in markets essay samples, sample report on methods of measuring of the air, good example of risk factors and risk assessment essay, good critical thinking on nursing theory analysis paper peplaus theory of interpersonal relations.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Personal Development

How to Be Kind to Animals

Last Updated: January 29, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Pippa Elliott, MRCVS . Dr. Elliott, BVMS, MRCVS is a veterinarian with over 30 years of experience in veterinary surgery and companion animal practice. She graduated from the University of Glasgow in 1987 with a degree in veterinary medicine and surgery. She has worked at the same animal clinic in her hometown for over 20 years. There are 16 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 192,592 times.

Animals of all kinds enrich our lives. They can be our friends or inspire our imagination. Whether it’s a house pet such as a cat, a domesticated animal like a horse, or even a wild animal like an owl or alligator, animals deserve kindness from humans. By caring for pets and domesticated animals and respecting animals in the wild, you can show your kindness to any animal.

Caring for Pets or Domesticated Animals

• Why do I want a pet?
• Do I have enough time and money to care for my pet?
• How well would an animal fit in my home? Am I allowed to have pets in my rental property?
• Who will care for my pet if I am away, ill, or pass away?

• Make sure your animals receive yearly vaccinations against rabies and other diseases. Schedule vaccinations as a part of your pet’s annual visit to the vet.
• Groom your animals as necessary for their species. For example, brush your horses, dogs, and cats regularly. [3] X Trustworthy Source American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Leading organization dedicated to the prevention of animal cruelty Go to source
• Watch for fleas and other pests like ear mites and treat them accordingly.

• Prepare a cozy sleeping space with items like a pet bed, box with a blanket, or a nice pile of clean hay. Put a personal item in the space to remind her of your scent.
• Create other spaces where your animals can eat, play, and go to the bathroom. Keep eating and bathroom spaces as far apart as possible because many animals won’t eat near where they defecate.
• Allow smaller animals like cats and dogs to live inside with you.
• Make sure smaller pets and domesticated animals that stay outside have proper shelter. For example, any animal needs a roof to protect it from rain, snow, or other bad weather. This is especially important for smaller animals because they are not able to regulate their body temperatures in extreme hot or cold. [4] X Research source
• Keep your pets’ and animals’ spaces as clean as possible. For example, if you have turtles or fish, clean the tank once a week. Likewise, clean a kitty litter box every day. [5] X Research source

• Give your animals food at the same times every day to establish a routine. [7] X Research source Ask your vet or conduct online research to figure out how often you should feed your pet for optimal health.
• Feed your animals food that is appropriate for their species. For example, give cats and dogs a mixture of moist and dry foods and pigs vegetables and fruits. [8] X Research source You can ask your vet or local pet store or conduct online research to figure out what brands and types of food are best for your best. Aim to get the highest quality food you can afford to promote your pet’s health.
• Make sure pets and other animals always have bowl of fresh and clean water in addition to their food. [9] X Research source Change the water at least once daily and more often if your pet drinks it or something like food falls in the bowl.
• Avoid giving your pet or domesticated animal table scraps or other human foods like chocolate because these can harm their health and even be fatal. [10] X Trustworthy Source American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Leading organization dedicated to the prevention of animal cruelty Go to source Talk to your vet about what types of foods to absolutely keep away from your pets.
• Reward your pet with treats when they are being good. Be careful not to feed your animals too many treats, which are often filled with sugar and can contribute to unhealthy weight gain.

• Avoid moving or playing with your animal when she is sleeping, eating or drinking, and cleaning herself. Doing so may scare, stress, or annoy animals, which could result in an unpleasant reaction.
• Avoid chasing pets because this can scare them. Although you might be tempted to show your animal love by following her and picking her up or interacting with her, this often goes against animal behavior. Allow pets and other animals approach you whenever they want. [11] X Research source
• Position yourself at your animal’s height to appear less threatening. This can relax them and ensure they are comfortable getting your attention.

• Pet or stroke and pick up your animals gently. Avoid squeezing your animal or pull her tail while you pet or stroke her. [13] X Research source
• Reciprocate any affection your animal shows you. This helps form a bond of trust and love between you and your animal. Part of this includes talking to your pet and referring to her by name.
• Play with your animal. Most pets and animals are naturally energetic and require play to stay happy and healthy. Give them toys, take them for walks, and do any other type of activity your animal enjoys.
• Be patient with your animal if she makes a mistake. Don’t yell, hit, or do anything else retaliatory towards her. Pets learn best from positive responses and may learn to fear you if you yell at or hit them.

• animals that are chained in yards without proper food, water, or shelter
• hitting or kicking animals, or even screaming at them.

Handling Animals with Care

• Consider putting yourself at the level of the animal to help calm it. [14] X Research source Kneel down to smaller animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits, or turtles. Avoid putting your face directly in front of an animal’s face, which may stress it and cause you harm.
• Keep in mind that animals respond to you the way you treat them.

• Avoid approaching an animal from its blind spots, which can startle it. This may traumatize the animal or could wind up in an injury for you.
• Let dogs, cats, and other animals sniff you before you handle it. Extend your hand and let the animal smell you. It will decide if you can approach it more closely from here. Consider washing your hands if you are touching multiple animals as some pets may not like the smell of another species.
• Give the animal a few seconds or minutes to approach you. Some animals may be naturally timid and need a little while to get used to your presence. Approaching them before an animal shows it wants your attention can cause it stress.

• Place your hands under the animal’s legs or on the legs and belly. This provides a stable base so she feels safe. You can also gently move your arms underneath your animal if she is larger. Remember to stay calm and be patient so that you don’t startle your animal. If the animal shows any signs of not wanting to be picked up, allow it to go free and try again another time.
• Use proper methods for larger animals. For example, if you need to pick up a horse, cow, or a pig, make sure you have the proper equipment such as a crane that supports the legs, head, and belly.
• Stand up slowly once you have a good handle of your pet. This can minimize the risk of startling the animal and traumatizing it.
• Avoid picking up an animal by its head, individual legs, or tail. No exceptions, otherwise you can seriously harm and traumatize the animal.

• Keep your animal in a balanced position so that she feels safe. Avoid flipping animals, which can not only traumatize, but also harm them. [15] X Research source
• Consider sitting down with your pet to help both of you relax. This may allow the animal to snuggle into you and further establish your bond of trust. Make sure you talk to your pet and stroke her while you are holding her.

Respecting Wild Animals

• Be aware that many species of animals, such as alligators, cannot be tamed and you shouldn’t make an attempt to tame them or their offspring. [17] X Research source
• Be aware that it is often against the law to keep wild animals without a special permit. [18] X Research source

• Avoid chasing, touching, or picking up wild animals.
• Remain quiet and still when watching wildlife. Use binoculars and cameras to get close to wildlife with your eyes.
• Keep your pets away from wild animals to prevent disease transmission or any unpleasant interactions.
• Stay away from habitats or wild animal areas at mating times or when they are protecting their young.

• Keep any food, including pet food, you have outside securely stored in containers with lids.
• Place trash in secured bins or sealed bags. If you are camping, hiking, or taking a nature walk, look for areas designated for trash. Never throw garbage on the ground or leave it sitting in your yard or elsewhere.
• Be aware that the salt from sweat on shoes or boots and scented toiletries can also attract wild animals.
• Never use food to bait a wild animal to come closer to you.

• Use organic lawn and garden treatments. Not only can this protect wildlife, but also your pets.

• Avoid swerving to not hit an animal on major roads. This can lead to major accidents and even human fatalities. Do your best to not hit the animal.
• Never go out of your way to hit an animal with your car. It’s cruel and could get you in legal trouble if someone sees you.

• Contact park rangers if you are in a natural park.
• Call your local wildlife rehabilitator, conservation commission, or police department if you are not in a park. Your local humane society will also have information about who you can contact.

• Consider making an annual donation to conservation groups such as the World Wildlife Foundation. [21] X Research source Groups like this can use the money to protect threatened and endangered species around the world. However, if you want to help animals in your local area, make a donation to a local nature reserve or park.
• Offer your time to a local part or animal facility. This can help them save administrative funds and divert them to important efforts such as vaccinations or rebuilding natural habitats.

Expert Q&A

• It can take a little while for new pets and domesticated animals to approach you; don't be discouraged if it doesn't happen quickly. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Engaging an animal—by holding or petting, for example-- against its wishes may traumatize or harm them or you. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• If an animal appears agitated, leave the area and allow it to calm down. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://online.uwa.edu/news/empathy-in-animals/
• ↑ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/cats-secure-attachment/
• ↑ https://www.aspca.org/news/hair-comes-trouble-why-pets-need-regular-grooming
• ↑ https://animalfoundation.com/whats-going-on/blog/basic-necessities-proper-pet-care
• ↑ https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/10668/dog_nutrition_final_fix.pdf
• ↑ https://www.saugusanimalhospital.com/blog/2017/october/-what-kind-of-food-how-much-and-how-often-/
• ↑ https://www.msdvetmanual.com/dog-owners/routine-care-and-breeding-of-dogs/routine-health-care-of-dogs
• ↑ https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/people-foods-avoid-feeding-your-pets
• ↑ https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/why-punishment-should-be-avoided
• ↑ https://www.southernazvets.com/5-healthy-ways-to-show-your-love-for-your-pet/
• ↑ https://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-experts/how-to-pet-a-dog
• ↑ https://www.ruralareavet.org/PDF/Animal_Handling.pdf
• ↑ https://www.eekwi.org/animals/leave-wild-animals-wild
• ↑ https://aldf.org/article/laws-that-protect-animals/
• ↑ https://www.gov.uk/report-dead-animal
• ↑ https://www.worldwildlife.org/

About This Article

To be kind to animals, always respect their personal space by allowing them to approach you when they’re ready. Additionally, try to avoid chasing or grabbing them, since that can be quite scary to an animal. When a domesticated animal approaches you, pet or stroke it gently so that it feels comfortable with you. However, if you encounter a wild animal, only admire it from afar so you don’t disturb it in its natural habitat. For more advice from our Veterinary co-author, including how to pick up and hold a domesticated animal, keep reading. Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Malachi Samuels

Oct 27, 2016

Did this article help you?

Arutla Hansika

Apr 10, 2017

Corey Smith

Nov 1, 2021

Priyankshu Ghosh

Jan 19, 2021

Akshat Singh

May 1, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Animal Ethics — Persuasive Animal Rights And The Importance Of Treating Animals With Respect

Persuasive Animal Rights and The Importance of Treating Animals with Respect

• Categories: Animal Cruelty Animal Ethics

About this sample

Words: 1394 |

Published: Jan 28, 2021

Words: 1394 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, works cited.

• American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). (n.d.). Animal cruelty laws in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/canada
• Animal Equality. (n.d.). Animal testing. Retrieved from https://www.animalequality.org/issues/animal-testing
• Animal Welfare Act. (1966). 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.
• Bekoff, M. (2013). The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy — and why they matter. New World Library.
• Cartmill, M. (1996). A view to a death in the morning: Hunting and nature through history. Harvard University Press.
• Dawkins, M. S. (2006). Through our eyes only? The search for animal consciousness. Oxford University Press.
• Francione, G. L. (1995). Animals, property, and the law. Temple University Press.
• Herzing, D. L. (2010). Dolphin communication: A window into the complexity of human language. In S. M. Reader & K. Laland (Eds.), Animal social complexity: Intelligence, culture, and individualized societies (pp. 293-311). Harvard University Press.
• Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.
• Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation. Harper Perennial.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1005 words

1 pages / 488 words

2 pages / 868 words

2 pages / 804 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Ethics

Martinez, Diana Rowe. “Rodeo Animals Are Not Abused.” Greenhaven Press, 2004 and Gale 2001. 07 May 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Context. Accessed 27 Oct. 2019.O’Connor, Jennifer. “Animal Abuse at The Rodeo.” New York Times, 07, [...]

The practice of keeping animals in zoos has sparked a passionate debate that revolves around ethical considerations and conservation goals. This essay explores the multifaceted arguments for and against the existence of zoos, [...]

Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." The New York Times. 10 November 2002. Salzman, J. "Animal Law." Foundation Press, 2011. Singer, P. "Animal Liberation." Harper Perennial, 2009.

The concept of zoos has long been a topic of debate, raising questions about the ethical implications of confining animals for human entertainment and conservation purposes. This essay delves into the multifaceted discussion [...]

The Bahamas are a ground of about 700 islands and 2,400 uninhabited islets and cays lying 50 mi off the east coast of Florida. Only about 30 of the islands are inhabited; the most important is New Providence (80 sq. mi; 207 sq. [...]

Statement of the problem: Animal testing has been around for centuries, starting with ancient Greek physicians who used animals for testing of medicines and anatomy of animals. It was only during the 12th century when physicians [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

English Compositions

Short Essay on Kindness to Animals [100, 200, 400 Words] With PDF

In this lesson today, you will learn how to write short essays on the topic of Kindness to Animals. In this lesson, I am going to adapt a simplistic approach to writing these essays that all kinds of students can easily understand. 

Short essay on Kindness to Animals in 100 Words

All the living creatures on this planet have the right to live freely in nature. Today, however, many animals all over the world are suffering because of human cruelty. People don’t just kill animals for their meat but also their skins, tusks, horns, teeth, feathers and fur. Many animals are kept captive, tortured and made to perform in front of crowds of people.

Innocent lab animals are used all over the world to test newly developed chemical formulations. We should be kind to animals and all living creatures. We should never harm animals. Instead, we should feed them and take care of them whenever we can. After all, having compassion for others is what truly makes us human. 

Short essay on Kindness to Animals in 200 Words

For thousands of years, human beings have hunted animals not just for food, but also for sports and fun. Many animals like elephants and horned rhinoceros have been killed for centuries for their tusks and horns. Animals like lions, tigers, monkeys and even dolphins are kept captive, tortured and made to perform in front of crowds of people.

The livestock animals kept in farms for their milk and meat live in such terrible conditions, unable to move freely. And of course, we can not forget the lab animals. Rabbits, guinea pigs, rats and mice are used all over the world to test new chemical formulas developed for humans. 

In our day to day life, we all have come across people throwing stones at street dogs or kicking them. Many people don’t even think twice before running their cars over street animals. We must ask ourselves if the innocent animals deserve our cruelty.

They don’t bother us and just want to live peacefully. We should become more kind and compassionate towards animals and all other living beings. We shouldn’t harm animals or let others harm them. We should feed and take care of helpless animals. After all, having compassion for others is what truly makes us human. 

Short essay on Kindness to Animals in 400 Words

All living beings on this planet were created and given life by the same divine force. All of us, whether it is human beings, plants or animals, have the right to live and be free. In the olden days, most kings and emperors spent their free time going on hunts to kill animals like deer, tigers, lions and elephants. The hunted animals were not eaten but just served as a trophy for the king.

Many big animals like elephants and horned rhinoceros are still killed for their tusks, horns and skins. Marine animals like sharks and whales are also killed to be served as delicacies in several high-end restaurants. Over the years, the population of these animals has greatly decreased and many exotic species are on the verge of becoming extinct. 

We don’t have to go far to see animals suffering because of human cruelty. It is not hard to notice how mistreated the street dogs are. People throw stones at them, kick them and some even run their cars over them. Many animals are kept captive and made to perform in circuses. The livestock animals kept in farms for their milk and meat live in such terrible conditions, unable to move freely.

Their babies are taken away from them and killed as the people running the farms don’t see any value in keeping them alive. Horses and bullocks kept for pulling carts and ploughs are often not fed properly and made to work until they collapse. If we take a look at the cosmetic industry, so many high-end brands test their products on innocent animals. Rabbits, guinea pigs, rats and mice are all used to test new chemical formulas developed for beauty products. This greatly harms them. 

Animals have every right to live freely in nature. Just because they cannot defend themselves, does not mean that we should keep torturing them for our gain. Kindness to animals and all other living creatures is a virtue. We should not harm animals and we should stop others from harming them as well. Many animals have lost their habitat and food sources because of deforestation and infrastructure developments done by human beings.

We should feed and take care of such animals instead of viewing them as a nuisance. Governments all over the world have taken various steps to stop illegal hunting and many organisations are trying their best to make life less cruel for farm and lab animals. But they can only do so much. It is on each one of us to become more compassionate and kind towards animals so that all living beings can live freely on this planet. 

If you have any doubts regarding this session, kindly let me know through some quick comments below. To read more such essays on various important topics, keep browsing our website.

You can join us on Telegram to get the latest updates on our upcoming sessions. Thank you for being with us. All the best for your exam. 

Community in Mission

Blog of the Archdiocese of Washington

On Kindness to Animals and Why It Is an Important Virtue to Cultivate

This certainly applies to our treatment of animals. There are some extremists who would equate the dignity of animals with that of humans, failing to understand that human abilities are exceptional and unique due to the capacities of our soul, made in the image of God. Others think it immoral for us to make use of animals as beasts of burden or for necessary food. Still others think that animal companions can replace healthy human relationships (rather than merely augment them).

But whatever the extremes and errors of our time, our animals do have important roles in helping us to become more human. St. Thomas Aquinas set forth the paradoxical notion that animals can help us to be more humane and more human:

Blood was forbidden, both in order to avoid cruelty, that they might abhor the shedding of human blood, as stated above (3, ad 8) … For the same reason they were forbidden to eat animals that had been suffocated or strangled: because the blood of these animals would not be separated from the body: or because this form of death is very painful to the victim; and the Lord wished to withdraw them from cruelty even in regard to irrational animals, so as to be less inclined to be cruel to other men, through being used to be kind to beasts (Summa Theologica, I, IIae, 102, art 6, ad 1).

St. Thomas links the avoidance of excessive cruelty to animals with a greater respect and gentleness for human life. As any psychotherapist or exorcist will tell you, the penchant for cruelty to human beings in sadists and murderers often began (usually in childhood) with cruelty to animals. Further, kindness to animals can help augment kindness to fellow human beings.

While distinct from animals, we share many bodily similarities including sensitivity to pain and suffering. It is a grave defect of character to be insensitive to the suffering of sentient creatures, animal or human. It is a not a far journey from relishing inflicting pain on animals to enjoying doing the same to human beings.

On a more positive note, as we learn to be patient and gentle with animals (especially pets), we can acquire the skills to be patient and gentle with our fellow humans. Admittedly, though, human beings are far more complicated and far less innocent than animals, whose behavior we can easily excuse.

This also helps debunk a demand for equivalence that sometimes emerges. The usual complaint goes something like this: “You’re kinder to your dog than you are to me!” Perhaps on some level this may be true, but our relationship to our pets is different because we reasonably expect less from them. They do not have rational souls and cannot be expected to behave justly or reasonably. But fellow human beings need more correction and must answer to a higher set of standards. Thus we are reasonably harder on them, given the nature of our relationship with them and what is rightly expected of them. Correction of a human person who may one day merit Heaven or Hell is more important for him than it is for an animal, which has no such consequences attached to its actions. So, it makes sense that we are harder on one another and expect more than we do from our animals.

That said, learning to express patience and kindness to an animal does help us to learn the language of kindness and gentleness that can, and often should, be granted to fellow human beings. It helps to awaken and train a tenderness in us.

In the Summa Theologica , St. Thomas also comments on the prohibition of boiling a kid goat in the milk of its mother:

Although the kid that is slain has no perception of the manner in which its flesh is cooked, yet it would seem to savor of heartlessness if the [mother’s] milk, which was intended for the nourishment of her offspring, were served up on the same dish (Summa Theologica I, IIae, 106 art. 5 ad 4).

Although Thomas does state other reasons for the prohibition (e.g., that it is the practice of the pagans), the avoidance of cruelty is stressed.

Pointless cruelty is never a good thing to allow in the human person , even if it is (only) directed toward lower forms of life. It is too easily transferred to the way we regard and treat one another.

Kindness to animals, therefore, is an important virtue to cultivate. We need not embrace excesses such that we fail to make proper use of animals as God intended (to assist us and even to be food for us). Neither must we bestow rights on them that have no corresponding duties or presuppose qualities they do not have. But pointless cruelty to animals that does not recognize their status as sentient beings harms not only them but us as well.

The paradox, then, is this: Our humanity is partially nurtured by our treatment of and experience with animals, both wild and tame. Kindness to animals, even if a virtue subject to excessive and even bizarre applications today, remains an important virtue for us.

The picture at the upper right is of my cat, Jewel (a.k.a. Jewel the Kidda, L’il Girl, and The Queen of Sheba).

2 Replies to “On Kindness to Animals and Why It Is an Important Virtue to Cultivate”

God gives us dogs as examples of faithfulness and trust. God gives us cats to show that we’re not always in control, and that it’s entirely human to welcome mystery into our lives.

There is an aspect of animal cruelty that this post doesn’t touch on: factory farms. Pigs, in particular, from what I’ve read, are treated most cruelly on in thoses places.

Comments are closed.

SAVE 10% ON PUPPY BUNDLE, GET A BONUS GIFT

• PAWD® Puppy Bundle
• Awoo x PAWD® Walk & Nest Bundle
• PAWD® Pet Crate

PAWD® Pet Pad

• PAWD® Lounger Pet Bed
• PAWD® Divider

Your Cart is Empty

• $0.00 Subtotal

Taxes and shipping calculated at checkout

PAWD® Pet crate

• PAWD Puppy Bundle
• KindTail x Awoo Walk & Nest Bundle
• PAWD Pet Crate
• Lounger Bed
• KindTail Mug

PAWD® Lounger

Medium PAWD Divider

Why Kindness Matters: 10 Ways to Be Kind to Animals

November 15, 2021 5 min read

Why kindness matters is a topic that doesn’t often come up in conversations. And yet, everyone deserves kindness, especially your pets.

As animal lovers, we know better than anyone that a lot of animals out there, aside from your four-legged companions, still need help to live a better life.

Although they become our companions through thick and thin, they cannot speak for themselves to tell us when something feels wrong to them.

So, as human beings, it is our responsibility to care for and be kind to our animal companions .

But, in general, what are the ways to be kind to animals?

10 easy tips on how to be kind to animals

1) approach animals slowly..

When meeting animals for the first time, you don’t want them to see you as a threat or trigger their fear and anxiety. Animals are more sensitive than humans regarding smell and behaviors, so you have to be careful.

One way to be kind to animals is to let them sniff you first.

For instance, you can offer them your hand for them to sniff so that you will know if it’s possible to approach them closely.

Just remember to wash your hands every time you pet an animal since some of them dislike other animals’ smell.

Aside from that, you should also avoid approaching an animal from their blind spots.

Moreover, if you want them to be comfortable with you, you can also wait for them to approach you instead of the other way around. Some animals need more time to get used to you.

2) Hold the animal calmly.

When picking up an animal, one thing you need to remember is to pick them up calmly.

You must also already know the correct methods of picking up a particular animal, especially if you want to hold them.

In holding them, be at ease and stable to reassure the animal that they are in safe hands. The trick here is to make yourself relax so that the animal can relax and enjoy your bonding.

You may want to balance the animal’s position without flipping them. You can also sit down and let them snuggle with you.

3) Foster an animal.

One of the kindest acts you can do for an animal is by joining a foster program.

This is a great opportunity for you if you’ve got no resources to live with an animal companion in the long run but have the resources to take care of one temporarily. 

You can go to a local shelter and help them allocate free spaces for another homeless animal by taking care of one rescued animal until someone adopts your chosen foster.

Why this kindness matters is because it helps animals move forward, both mentally and physically.

This act makes you a beacon of light, as it encourages them to trust other humans. This way, you can contribute to their wellness by becoming a foster parent who can provide them with the social skills they need so that dog parents would adopt them.

4) Respect wildlife animals.

Kindness is not only for domestic animals. On the contrary, it also applies to animals in the wild.

One thing you have to be aware of is that domestic animals are a lot different from a wild one.

Wild animals may exhibit behaviors that you may not be comfortable with. Some of them may also be difficult to tame or are even untamable at all. 

For this reason, aside from showing kindness, you also need to treat wildlife animals with respect.

Respecting the lives of animals living in the wild may come in a number of forms. For one, if you want to keep a wide animal in your home, you need to secure a special permit first.

You should also avoid feeding them in the wild because it may disturb their natural behaviors or damage their health.

5) Choose cruelty-free products.

When making a product that caters to human needs, conducting experiments to prove its effectiveness or toxicity is inevitable. Unfortunately, people usually evaluate the potential hazards of these products on our four-legged companions.

To encourage everyone to be kind to animals, we recommend opting for animal cruelty-free products instead.

Just this simple act can already support the lives of thousands of guinea pigs, bunnies, rats, and many more. So, do your research well on which products you should buy and use.

6) Avoid single-use plastic.

An indirect act of kindness that you may never know has a significant impact on animals is not using single-use plastic.

Why this kindness matters is because it helps animals, especially strays, to avoid accidentally eating plastics and choking on them.

If using plastic is hard to let go of, then make sure to dispose of the plastic responsibly.

Having no proper waste disposal system would be a waste in the end because stray animals don’t tend to choose as long as there is a portion of food they can take.

7) Adopt an animal.

If you think you can do more than fostering an animal and are confident that you can offer one a permanent home, why not adopt one?

The animal you choose will be lucky to have a parent like you.

To adopt an animal, you can go to nearby shelters or any adoption events and talk to the volunteers about your plan.

Choose the dog you feel you want to take care of or you feel you’d be comfortable being with at your home. 

8) Report injured or abandoned animals.

When you encounter an injured or abandoned animal,  never ignore them.

In fact, and better yet, report to the shelters you know that you encountered an animal with injuries or that has found itself without a home.

Contacting the proper authorities immediately will ensure that animal welfare organizations can quickly check on their conditions.

Your local humane society may have the contact information you need if you see animals that needs rescue.

You can also contact the police department, a wildlife rehabilitator, local rescue shelters, or park rangers (if you are in a park).

Acknowledging animals’ suffering and taking action to address them is one of the easy ways you can take to be kind to animals.

To make these animals live long is why kindness matters.

9) Support animal charities or any animal shelters.

Another way you can make a direct impact on the lives of animals is to help the people who take care of animals hands-on.

To be specific, you can be kind to animals by making donations to shelters and rescue groups so that they have enough budget for all the animals they will rescue.

If you don’t want to stop at donations, you can also volunteer at your local shelter and adequately train yourself to handle the animals they have.

10) Teach children to be kind to animals.

Keeping animals safe and healthy doesn’t stop with you. In fact, we even suggest that you educate your kids about why kindness matters to animals and the appropriate actions to be kind to animals.

Change always starts from the beginning, so teaching children how to show kindness to animals and spreading the love for them leaves a legacy and hope for the future.

After all, as with other life lessons, teaching youngsters about being kind to animals early on means that that they can also pass it on.

The reason why kindness matters to animals is simple: they don’t deserve to be in pain.

Therefore, always be kind to animals. As long as you are careful and don’t forget how to show kindness to animals, you can make an impact and save an animal’s life.

Just like with any other creature, animals deserve kindness, too.

Leave a comment

Comments will be approved before showing up.

Kindness to Animals Essay

The kindness to animals essay covers why we should always show compassion to animals. There are a few advantages to being kind to animals, and they are listed in the article. Some of these include showing respect for animals, being kind to them, and helping preserve our environment as it provides shelter to animals. Kindness to animals essay teaches us to be kind and tolerant towards furry friends.

Some people think that animals don’t have feelings or emotions, but they do. The relationship between humans and animals is much more than just giving them food and shelter. A human’s well-being depends on all living things, including animals. Humans are responsible for the treatment of domestic animals .

Kindness to animals is a common practice that many people engage in today. It is always a nice feeling to help animals in need. There are many ways that you can show kindness towards them. You can share your food with them, get a pet for yourself, or volunteer for an animal shelter.

Animals have an impact on our lives in many ways. As a society, we have focused more on human beings, which has caused a lot of harm to our planet and the animals that live on it. It is important to make decisions that help preserve wildlife to protect humans and animals.

Importance of Protecting Animals

Animal activism and animal rights have been a growing trend in recent years. Animal advocates preach kindness to animals, highlighting that just as humans should be kind to each other, they should also extend that kindness to the wildlife around them. There are different types of animal activism by the people who believe in protecting animals.

There are many reasons to take care of animals and levels of kindness one can show to an animal. Some people believe that animals are a reflection of ourselves, and if we have loving animal companions, it will make us feel more fulfilled. There is also the argument that animals have the same rights as humans and that they should be protected for their welfare.

Kindness to animals essay discusses the benefits of animal-friendly practices and ideas. It also provides resources for those who want to make a difference in their own lives, whether they are working in the animal industry or not.

Many wild animals are suffering and dying because of human cruelty. The best way to help is to be kinder. We should treat all animals with care, respect, love, kindness, and dignity.

Frequently Asked Questions on Kindness to Animals Essay

Why should kids refer to byju’s kindness to animals essay.

Kids must refer to BYJU’S kindness to animals essay because it discusses the benefits of animal-friendly practices and philosophies. Animals need to be protected because they are an important part of our ecosystem. Also, when an animal becomes extinct, this could have a huge impact on the ecosystem.

Why should we protect the animals?

Animals are a precious part of our world, and we should protect them. There are many animals that have been endangered because of human activities, like the animals in Africa that have been killed by poaching. We need to protect these animals so that we can stop global warming and other environmental issues.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How Should We Treat Our Fellow Creatures?

To the Editor:

Re “ According Animals Dignity ,” by Frank Bruni (column, Jan. 14):

The idea that mammalian species, especially our domesticated pets, have emotions like our own is not new: Charles Darwin articulated that belief in his 1872 monograph, “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.” But our views of animal emotions, like Darwin’s, are still based more on anthropomorphism than on hard scientific knowledge, recent claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Brain scans are notoriously indirect, low resolution, correlative and often wildly overinterpreted. The simple fact is that it is still very hard to know in a scientifically rigorous manner what animals are thinking or feeling. What I find disturbing, however, is the implication that animals should be accorded “dignity” only because we think that they have emotions or feelings like our own.

Animals should be treated with dignity and respect whether or not we truly understand, or only think we understand, the complex workings of their inner lives.

DAVID J. ANDERSON Pasadena, Calif., Jan. 14, 2014

The writer is a professor of biology and a neuroscientist at Caltech.

The Enlightenment philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in 1789:

“The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. ... A full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer ?”

THOMAS ZIPP Cleveland, Jan. 14, 2014

Frank Bruni appropriately advocates concern for the well-being of animals. I encourage him (and others) to join in the covenant I made 40 years ago out of respect for all sentient beings. My agreement with the animals: I don’t eat them, and they don’t eat me.

SIMON ARONIN White Plains, Jan. 14, 2014

Why we need to show animals kindness and respect

It can be easy to go through life without giving many subjects much thought. It is sometimes more convenient for people to go about their day simply thinking about themselves. But for those who are looking to become a little more conscious with their thinking and knowledge, there is plenty of important information out there that can be absorbed.

For instance, many people feel passionately when it comes to taking care of the environment and so will educate themselves as much as possible in regards to this topic. Others may throw themselves into the world of  marine conservation  and will strive to do their part when it comes to safeguarding the ocean. For many, they will feel that it is their mission when it comes to  protecting animals  as well as their  natural habitats .

How animals and humans are able to co-exist in this modern world

Once upon a time, humans had to live by the rule “kill or be killed” when it came to certain wildlife. In modern times, however, this is rarely the case and humans now have a duty of care when it comes to the animal kingdom. This is especially the case as many species are no longer wild due to farming and the animal entertainment industry.

Without certain species, there can be a break down in the food web and other species may then become endangered as well. This, in turn, can have an impact on the environment which in the long run can have serious consequences when it comes to human life too. As this is the case, it is important that animals and humans are able to co-exist in this modern world. This can be achieved by protecting certain areas as well as treating animals with kindness and respect. A great way for people to learn more about this and to contribute is to consider volunteering in Australia with opportunities such as the  Australian Forest Wildlife project offered Oceans 2 Earth Volunteering.

Animals have a right to life too

For those who find themselves diving into this subject, they may come to realisation that all animals have a right to life too. Even if the sole purpose of an animal is to provide food for a human, they still deserve to have a full life where they have freedom to participate in their natural activities. Furthermore, they have the right to a humane death.

This is so important as animals have feelings too and just like humans will experience pain. As humans are at the top of the food chain, we are gifted the duty of taking care of animals whose outcomes are left in our hands. Because of this, we should educate ourselves as much as possible and treat animals with kindness and respect. After all, we all live under the same sky.

Written by Shalee Rae, writer for Oceans 2 Earth Volunteers

• What Is A Debt-For-Nature Swap and How Does This Help the Environment?
• 10 Top Facts You Might Not Know About Orangutans
• 10 Top Facts You Might Not Know About Sun Bears
• Why Do We Have to Pay to Volunteer? Here’s Why It’s Worth the Price
• Here’s Why You Should Volunteer While Visiting Australia on a Working Holiday Visa
• Top 3 Differences Between African and Asian Elephants

You may also like

What is a debt-for-nature swap and how does..., 10 top facts you might not know about..., 3 tips for finding affordable flights for summer....

Subscribe for news, articles and tips

© 2024 All Right Reserved Oceans 2 Earth Foundation – Oceans 2 Earth Volunteers Ltd.

Find anything you save across the site in your account

What Would It Mean to Treat Animals Fairly?

By Elizabeth Barber

A few years ago, activists walked into a factory farm in Utah and walked out with two piglets. State prosecutors argued that this was a crime. That they were correct was obvious: The pigs were the property of Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the country. The defendants had videoed themselves committing the crime; the F.B.I. later found the piglets in Colorado, in an animal sanctuary.

The activists said they had completed a “rescue,” but Smithfield had good reason to claim it hadn’t treated the pigs illegally. Unlike domestic favorites like dogs, which are protected from being eaten, Utah’s pigs are legally classified as “livestock”; they’re future products, and Smithfield could treat them accordingly. Namely, it could slaughter the pigs, but it could also treat a pig’s life—and its temporary desire for food, space, and medical help—as an inconvenience, to be handled in whatever conditions were deemed sufficient.

In their video, the activists surveyed those conditions . At the facility—a concentrated animal-feeding operation, or CAFO —pregnant pigs were confined to gestation crates, metal enclosures so small that the sows could barely lie down. (Smithfield had promised to stop using these crates, but evidently had not.) Other pigs were in farrowing crates, where they had enough room to lie down but not enough to turn their bodies around. When the activists approached one sow, they found dead piglets rotting beneath her. Nearby, they found two injured piglets, whom they decided to take. One couldn’t walk because of a foot infection; the other’s face was covered in blood. According to Smithfield, which denied mistreating animals, the piglets were each worth about forty-two dollars, but both had diarrhea and other signs of illness. This meant they were unlikely to survive, and that their bodies would be discarded, just as millions of farm animals are discarded each year.

During the trial, the activists reiterated that, yes, they entered Smithfield’s property and, yes, they took the pigs. And then, last October, the jury found them not guilty. In a column for the Times , one of the activists—Wayne Hsiung, the co-founder of Direct Action Everywhere—described talking to one of the jurors, who said that it was hard to convict the activists of theft, given that the sick piglets had no value for Smithfield. But another factor was the activists’ appeal to conscience. In his closing statement, Hsiung, a lawyer who represented himself, argued that an acquittal would model a new, more compassionate world. He had broken the law, yes—but the law, the jury seemed to agree, might be wrong.

A lot has changed in our relationship with animals since 1975, when the philosopher Peter Singer wrote “ Animal Liberation ,” the book that sparked the animal-rights movement. Gestation crates, like the ones in Utah, are restricted in the European Union, and California prohibits companies that use them from selling in stores, a case that the pork industry fought all the way to the Supreme Court—and lost. In a 2019 Johns Hopkins survey, more than forty per cent of respondents wanted to ban new CAFO s. In Iowa, which is the No. 1 pork-producing state, my local grocery store has a full Vegan section. “Vegan” is also a shopping filter on Sephora, and most of the cool-girl brands are vegan, anyway. Wearing fur is embarrassing.

And yet Singer’s latest book, “ Animal Liberation Now ,” a rewrite of his 1975 classic, is less a celebratory volume than a tragic one—tragic because it is very similar to the original in refrain, which is that, big-picture-wise, the state of animal life is terrible. “The core argument I was putting forward,” Singer writes, “seemed so irrefutable, so undeniably right, that I thought everyone who read it would surely be convinced by it.” Apparently not. By some estimates, scientists in the U.S. currently use roughly fifteen million animals for research, including mice, rats, cats, dogs, birds, and nonhuman primates. As in the seventies, much of this research tries to model psychological ailments, despite scientists’ having written for decades that more research is needed to figure out whether animals—and which kind of animals—provide a useful analogue for mental illness in humans. When Singer was first writing, a leading researcher created psychopathic monkeys by raising them in isolation, impregnating them with what he called a “rape rack,” and studying how the mothers bashed their infants’ heads into the ground. In 2019, researchers were still putting animals through “prolonged stress”—trapping them in deep water, restraining them for long periods while subjecting them to the odor of a predator—to see if their subsequent behavior evidenced P.T.S.D. (They wrote that more research was needed.) Meanwhile, factory farms, which were newish in 1975, have swept the globe. Just four per cent of Americans are vegetarian, and each year about eighty-three billion animals are killed for food.

It’s for these animals, Singer writes, “and for all the others who will, unless there is a sudden and radical change, suffer and die,” that he writes this new edition. But Singer’s hopes are by now tempered. One obvious problem is that, in the past fifty years, the legal standing of animals has barely changed. The Utah case was unusual not just because of the verdict but because referendums on farm-animal welfare seldom occur at all. In many states, lawmakers, often pressured by agribusiness, have tried to make it a serious crime to enter a factory farm’s property. The activists in Utah hoped they could win converts at trial; they gambled correctly, but, had they been wrong, they could have gone to prison. As in 1975, it remains impossible to simply petition the justice system to notice that pigs are suffering. All animals are property, and property can’t take its owner to court.

Philosophers have debated the standing of animals for centuries. Pythagoras supposedly didn’t eat them, perhaps because he believed they had souls. Their demotion to “things” owes partly to thinkers like Aristotle, who called animals “brute beasts” who exist “for the sake of man,” and to Christianity, which, like Stoicism before it, awarded unique dignity to humans. We had souls; animals did not. Since then, various secular thinkers have given this idea a new name—“inherent value,” “intrinsic dignity”—in order to explain why it is O.K. to eat a pig but not a baby. For Singer, these phrases are a “last resort,” a way to clumsily distinguish humans from nonhuman animals. Some argue that our ability to tell right from wrong, or to perceive ourselves, sets us apart—but not all humans can do these things, and some animals seem to do them better. Good law doesn’t withhold justice from humans who are elderly or infirm, or those who are cognitively disabled. As a utilitarian, Singer cites the founder of that tradition, the eighteenth-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who argued that justice and equality have nothing to do with a creature’s ability to reason, or with any of its abilities at all, but with the fact that it can suffer. Most animals suffer. Why, then, do we not give them moral consideration?

Singer’s answer is “speciesism,” or “bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species.” Like racism and sexism, speciesism denies equal consideration in order to maintain a status quo that is convenient for the oppressors. As Lawrence Wright has written in this magazine , courts, when considering the confinement of elephants and chimpanzees, have conceded that such animals evince many of the qualities that give humans legal standing, but have declined to follow through on the implications of this fact. The reason for that is obvious. If animals deserved the same consideration as humans, then we would find ourselves in a world in which billions of persons were living awful, almost unimaginably horrible lives. In which case, we might have to do something about it.

Equal consideration does not mean equal treatment. As a utilitarian, Singer’s aim is to minimize the suffering in the world and maximize the pleasure in it, a principle that invites, and often demands, choices. This is why Singer does not object to killing mosquitos (if done quickly), or to using animals for scientific research that would dramatically relieve suffering, or to eating meat if doing so would save your life. What he would not agree with, though, is making those choices on the basis of perceived intelligence or emotion. In a decision about whether to eat chicken or pork, it is not better to choose chicken simply because pigs seem smarter. The fleeting pleasure of eating any chicken is trounced by its suffering in industrial farms, where it was likely force-fed, electrocuted, and perhaps even boiled alive.

Still, Singer’s emphasis on suffering is cause for concern to Martha Nussbaum , whose new book, “ Justice for Animals ,” is an attempt to settle on the ideal philosophical template for animal rights. Whereas Singer’s argument is emphatically emotion-free—empathy, in his view, is not just immaterial but often actively misleading—Nussbaum is interested in emotions, or at least in animals’ inner lives and desires. She considers several theories of animal rights, including Singer’s, before arguing that we should adopt her “capabilities approach,” which builds on a framework developed by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen, and holds that all creatures should be given the “opportunity to flourish.” For decades, Nussbaum has adjusted her list of what this entails for humans, which includes “being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length,” “being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves,” and having “bodily integrity”—namely, freedom from violence and “choice in matters of reproduction.” In “Justice for Animals,” she outlines some conditions for nonhuman flourishing: a natural life span, social relationships, freedom of movement, bodily integrity, and play and stimulation. Eventually, she writes, we would have a refined list for each species, so that we could insure flourishing “in the form of life characteristic to the creature.”

In imagining this better world, Nussbaum is guided by three emotions: wonder, anger, and compassion. She wants us to look anew at animals such as chickens or pigs, which don’t flatter us, as gorillas might, with their resemblance to us. What pigs do, and like to do, is root around in the dirt; lacquer themselves in mud to keep cool; build comfy nests in which to shelter their babies; and communicate with one another in social groups. They also seek out belly rubs from human caregivers. In a just world, Nussbaum writes, we would wonder at a pig’s mysterious life, show compassion for her desire to exist on her own terms, and get angry when corporations get in her way.

Some of Nussbaum’s positions are more actionable, policy-wise, than others. For example, she supports legal standing for animals, which raises an obvious question: How would a pig articulate her desires to a lawyer? Nussbaum notes that a solution already exists in fiduciary law: in the event that a person, like a toddler or disabled adult, cannot communicate their decisions or make sound ones, a representative is appointed to understand that person’s interests and advocate for them. Just as organizations exist to help certain people advance their interests, organizations could represent categories of animals. In Nussbaum’s future world, such a group could take Smithfield Foods to court.

Perhaps Nussbaum’s boldest position is that wild animals should also be represented by fiduciaries, and indeed be assured, by humans, the same flourishing as any other creature. If this seems like an overreach, a quixotic attempt to control a world that is better off without our meddling, Nussbaum says, first, to be realistic: there is no such thing as a truly wild animal, given the extent of human influence on Earth. (If a whale is found dead with a brick of plastic in its stomach, how “wild” was it?) Second, in Nussbaum’s view, if nature is thoughtless—and Nussbaum thinks it is—then perhaps what happens in “the wild” is not always for the best. No injustice can be ignored. If we aspire to a world in which no sentient creature can harm another’s “bodily integrity,” or impede one from exploring and fulfilling one’s capabilities, then it is not “the destiny of antelopes to be torn apart by predators.”

Here, Nussbaum’s world is getting harder to imagine. Animal-rights writing tends to elide the issue of wild-animal suffering for obvious reasons—namely, the scarcity of solutions. Singer covers the issue only briefly, and mostly to say that it’s worth researching the merit of different interventions, such as vaccination campaigns. Nussbaum, for her part, is unclear about how we would protect wild antelopes without impeding the flourishing of their predators—or without impeding the flourishing of antelopes, by increasing their numbers and not their resources. In 2006, when she previously discussed the subject, she acknowledged that perhaps “part of what it is to flourish, for a creature, is to settle certain very important matters on its own.” In her new book, she has not entirely discarded that perspective: intervention, she writes, could result in “disaster on a large scale.” But the point is to “press this question all the time,” and to ask whether our hands-off approach is less noble than it is self-justifying—a way of protecting ourselves from following our ideals to their natural, messy, inconvenient ends.

The enduring challenge for any activist is both to dream of almost-unimaginable justice and to make the case to nonbelievers that your dreams are practical. The problem is particularly acute in animal-rights activism. Ending wild-animal suffering is laughably hard (our efforts at ending human suffering don’t exactly recommend us to the task); obviously, so is changing the landscape of factory farms, or Singer wouldn’t be reissuing his book. In 2014, the British sociologist Richard Twine suggested that the vegan isn’t unlike the feminist of yore, in that both come across as killjoys whose “resistance against routinized norms of commodification and violence” repels those who prefer the comforts of the status quo. Wayne Hsiung, the Direct Action Everywhere activist, was only recently released from jail, after being sentenced for duck and chicken rescues in California. On his blog, he wrote that one reason the prosecution succeeded was that, unlike in Utah, he and his colleagues were cast as “weird extremists.”

It’s easy to construct a straw-man vegan, one oblivious to his own stridency, privilege, or hypocrisy. Isn’t he driving deforestation with all his vegetables? (No, Singer replies, as the vast majority of soybeans are fed to farm animals.) Isn’t he ignoring food deserts or the price tag on vegan substitutes, which puts them out of the reach of poor families? (Nussbaum acknowledges that cost can be an issue, but argues that it only emphasizes the need for resourced people to eat as humanely as they can, given that the costs of a more ethical diet “will not come down until it is chosen by many.”) Anyone pointing out moral culpability will provoke, in both others and themselves, a certain defensiveness. Nussbaum spends a lot of time discussing her uneasiness with her choice to eat fish for nutritional reasons. (She argues that fish likely have no sense of the future, a claim that even she seems unsure about.) Singer is eager to intervene here, emphasizing that animal-rights activism should pursue the diminishment of suffering, not the achievement of sainthood. “We are more likely to persuade others to share our attitude if we temper our ideals with common sense than if we strive for the kind of purity that is more appropriate to a religious dietary law than to an ethical and political movement,” he writes. Veganism is a boycott, and, while boycotts are more effective the more you commit to them, what makes them truly effective is persuading others to join them.

Strangely, where Singer and Nussbaum might agree is that defining the proper basis for the rights of animals is less important, at least in the short term, than getting people not to harm them, for any reason at all. Those reasons might have nothing to do with the animals themselves. Perhaps you decide not to eat animals because you care about people: because you care that the water where you live, if it’s anything like where I live, is too full of CAFO by-products to confidently drink. Perhaps you care about the workers in enormous slaughterhouses, where the pay is low and the costs to the laborer high. Perhaps you believe in a God, and believe that this God would expect better of people than to eat animals raised and killed in darkness. Or perhaps someone you love happens to love pigs, or to love the idea that the world could be gentler or more just, and you love the way they see the future enough to help them realize it. Nussbaum, after all, became interested in animal rights because she loved a person, her late daughter, an attorney who championed legislation to protect whales and other wild animals until her death, in 2019. Nussbaum’s book is dedicated to her—and also, now, to the whales. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

First she scandalized Washington. Then she became a princess .

What exactly happened between Neanderthals and humans ?

The unravelling of an expert on serial killers .

When you eat a dried fig, you’re probably chewing wasp mummies, too .

The meanings of the Muslim head scarf .

The slippery scams of the olive-oil industry .

Critics on the classics: our 1991 review of “Thelma & Louise.”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Adam Gopnik

By Kathryn Schulz

By Burkhard Bilger

• Around the House
• Home Building and Improvement
• Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
• The Backyard
• Arts & Entertainment
• Beauty & Fashion
• Green Living
• Green Travel
• Health & Wellness
• Outdoor Fun
• Eat Healthy
• Organic Products
• The unexpected key to the future of grid-connected solar power
• United Kingdom and Germany Lead Solar Energy Field
• Actor Leonardo DiCaprio Donates 7 Million Dollars to Marine Conservation
• Jackson County, Oregon Bans GMO Seeds Cultivation

Teaching Kids How to Treat Animals Kindly

How many times have you heard of cases where kids are involved in incidents of cruelty towards harmless animals? Violent films and video games that kids are exposed to these days can in some cases make them more aggressive and less compassionate or desensitize them. Others just don’t understand what their actions truly mean; that animals feel fear, and pain and that death is real not like in TV.

Children can be made more compassionate, kind and empathetic members of society if adults take meaningful steps and teach them the ways to treat animals kindly. Learning begins at an early stage and if children today learn to treat animals kindly, it can help pave a way to a better and more responsible society in the future. School is the best place where a child can learn to love animals. The sooner a school implements such lessons, the better.

A child feels more inclined to love and appreciate something when he or she feels adequately convinced about its goodness. Young kids in the age groups of 3 to 4 years can be told about the joys of keeping pets and how pets like dogs, cats can be the most loving and selfless friends. Children can also learn to appreciate animals through entertaining cartoon shows and story books about characters like Kipper the Dog, Tweety the cute yellow canary and Snoopy, the well known Charlie Brown character. Parents and teachers can take children to animal shelters and encourage them to help with small tasks, such as cleaning kennels, feeding rescued animals and grooming dogs and cats.

Children also learn when adults set precedents for them. Adults must speak out when they witness cruelty to animals. By turning a blind eye to such things, a parent or guardian communicates to children that cruelty may be okay. It is not essential to get into a major confrontation with anyone but whenever appropriate, the incident must be reported to proper authorities. Prevention of cruelty to animals is important at all levels. Many animal lovers are also vegetarians or vegans and kids too can be taught about the goodness of a vegetarian diet. This helps them be aware of numerous benefits of vegetarianism while also becoming more loving and kind toward animals. You can further their love for animals by gifting only toys that will encourage their learning and motor skills instead of ones like violent video games or toy guns.

Teach kids to treat animals kindly and it will help them become more mature, understanding and noble members of our society!

Developing empathy towards animals

Key points:

• Toddlers and pre-kindergarten children often inadvertently behave in ways that are not kind to animals, but early education about kindness to animals can help them develop empathy, self-control, and a better understanding of themselves.
• Spending time with animals can improve children’s physical and psychological well-being.
• Ideas for teaching children kindness towards animals include introducing them to different types of animals through books and bird feeders, showing them how to pet animals safely, and explaining to them why teasing animals or behaving aggressively towards them is not okay.
• Brightly provides a list of books that can be helpful for teaching toddlers about how to treat animals kindly.

Without having cruel intentions, most toddlers and pre-kindergarten children are simply too young to realize that pulling or squeezing an animal’s ears, hair, or just using them to explore and get funny reactions is actually not so funny for the cat, dog, bird, or bug in question. But this doesn’t mean that they can’t learn about kindness towards all kind of creatures at an early age. Quite the contrary!

Teaching your child how to coexist safely and lovingly with nature and animals can help them develop self-control, learn about boundaries, develop empathy, and know more about their own self and preferences. It also means that your toddler will be less likely to have bad experiences when interacting with an animal that can defend itself.

More so, it is known that spending time with animals and pets is good for both for the physical and psychological well-being of children, and is a great first step towards raising a nature-loving child.

Here are some ideas on how to help your child to be kind towards animals:

• Books can be a good tool to show your kid different kinds of animals, so that they get comfortable around aquatic animals and winged, furry, or scaled ones too.
• Have a bird-feeder on your porch, window, or backyard.
• Show them how to kindly and safely touch a well-domesticated animal. You can start with modeling how to pet a cat or a dog using a stuffed animal. You can also play pretend and have you or your toddler be a puppy, and emphasize about gentleness and slow movements.
• Explain that animals have feelings and that they can be hurt by pulling and trampling, just as that behavior would hurt them.
• Discourage teasing an animal. Explain how it’s not nice to bother an animal that’s eating or napping, or to take away from them a loved toy. Animals dislike being treated rudely just as much as people do.
• Teach caution around unfamiliar animals. You can tell your child not to go near an animal (other than your house pet if you have one) without an adult around.

Related Articles

4 Spring Activities for Preschoolers

Spring activities for preschoolers can play a significant role in the overall development of children. Through playful exploration of nature,…

Essential Newborn Care

The birth of a baby is a moment of great emotion and joy for parents and, at the same time,…

Signs of Colic in Babies

Colic is a common disorder in babies, characterized by intense, prolonged crying for no apparent reason. This can be very…

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Download now!

Practical Ethics

The Psychology of Speciesism: How We Privilege Certain Animals Over Others

• by Lucius Caviola
• February 22, 2018 November 7, 2018

Written by Lucius Caviola

Our relationship with animals is complex. There are some animals we treat very kindly; we keep them as pets, give them names, and take them to the doctor when they are sick. Other animals, in contrast, seem not to deserve this privileged status; we use them as objects for human consumption, trade, involuntary experimental subjects, industrial equipment, or as sources of entertainment. Dogs are worth more than pigs, horses more than cows, cats more than rats, and by far the most worthy species of all is our own one. Philosophers have referred to this phenomenon of discriminating individuals on the basis of their species membership as speciesism (Singer, 1975). Some of them have argued that speciesism is a form of prejudice analogous to racism or sexism.

Whether speciesism actually exists and whether it is related to other forms of prejudice isn’t just a philosophical question, however. Fundamentally, these are hypotheses about human psychology that can be explored and tested empirically. Yet surprisingly, speciesism has been almost entirely neglected by psychologists ( apart from a few ). There have been fewer than 30 publications in the last 70 years on this topic as revealed by a Web of Science search for the keywords speciesism and human-animal relations in all psychology journals. While this search may not be totally exhaustive, it pales in comparison to the almost 3’000 publications on the psychology of racism in the same time frame. The fact that psychology has neglected speciesism is strange, given the relevance of the topic (we all interact with animals or eat meat), the prevalence of the topic in philosophy, and the strong focus psychology puts on other types of apparent prejudice. Researching how we assign moral status to animals should be an obvious matter of investigation for psychology.

Together with my colleagues Jim A.C. Everett and Nadira S. Faber, I recently published a paper on speciesism in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ( Caviola, Everett, & Faber, 2018 ). Our aim was to establish speciesism as a topic in the field. To that end, we developed a Speciesism Scale: a standardised, validated, and reliable measurement instrument that can assess the extent to which a person has speciesist views. Our research demonstrated that there is indeed a unique psychological construct — speciesism — that determines to what extent people discriminate individuals on the basis of their species membership. This construct is not captured by other measures of prejudice or prosociality and it shows some interesting properties.

Our research showed that the philosophers were right when they drew an analogy between speciesism and other forms of prejudice. Speciesism correlates positively with racism, sexism, and homophobia, and seems to be underpinned by the same socio-ideological beliefs. Similar to racism and sexism, speciesism appears to be an expression of Social Dominance Orientation: the ideological belief that inequality can be justified and that weaker groups should be dominated by stronger groups ( Dhont, et al., 2016 ). In addition, speciesism correlates negatively with both empathy and actively open-minded thinking. Men are more likely to be speciesists than women. Yet, there are no correlations with age or education.

Speciesism also manifests in real world behavior. In our studies, speciesism predicted whether people are more willing to help humans than animals, or “superior” animals to “inferior” animals. For, example, when given the choice of donating to a charity that helps dogs or pigs, people are more likely to help dogs than pigs the higher they score on speciesism. Similarly, the higher people score on speciesism, the more willing they are to invest time to help homeless people than to help establish basic rights for chimpanzees. Finally, speciesism is related to ethical vegetarianism. Even though our studies showed that not everybody who rejects speciesism believes that eating meat is wrong, we still observed that people higher on speciesism tended to prefer a meat snack over a vegetarian snack.

Critics of speciesism as a concept sometimes argue that the reason we care less about animals is not due to species membership per se, but due to animals not being intelligent or not being able to suffer to the same extent as humans. Our research, however, showed that this objection doesn’t hold. It is true that people perceive animals or “inferior” animals to be less intelligent or less able to suffer than humans or “superior” animals. However, in our studies, people’s beliefs about individuals’ level of intelligence and capability to suffer only explains a small part of their behavior directed towards them. By far the strongest explanation of people’s behavior is speciesism itself. For example, even though people know that dogs and pigs are roughly similarly intelligent and similarly capable of suffering, they still are much more likely to help dogs than pigs. And, when asked whether they would rather help a chimpanzee or a human being who is mentally severely disabled, people are much more willing to help the human being than the chimpanzee, even if they believe that the chimpanzee is more intelligent and more capable of suffering than the human being. This clearly suggests that an individual’s species membership itself is a key determinant of how we value, perceive and treat that individual.

What can we make of these psychological findings? It’s important to note that this research is purely descriptive. It primarily tells us that speciesism is a psychological reality and that it shows up in our attitudes, emotions and behavior towards animals. As the philosophers argued, speciesism is indeed psychologically analogous to other forms of prejudice. What we want to make of these findings is a separate, moral question. And yet, these insights into the psychology of speciesism could inform our thinking about how we want to treat animals. If we consider racism to be wrong, and know that racism and speciesism are psychologically related, this might make us question whether speciesism shouldn’t be considered wrong as well. Either way, we have only just begun to understand the psychological aspects of speciesism. Hopefully, more researchers will recognize this and help to explore this phenomenon in greater depth.

Caviola, L., Everett, J.A.C., Faber, N.S. (In Press). The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology .

25 Comment on this post

Your article is interesting. Using the word moral in preferring one animal over another is interesting. I would add that the only moral consideration in my relationship with any living creature is the treatment of that creature. I prefer cats in my world but I would treat a pig or any species with the same concern as I would my cat. The success of caring for that pig is my only moral obligation. Preferring my cats over the pig would not be a moral failure in my view. It’s a matter of simple preference. Animals are not on the human plain, they were created by God for food, companionship and for their place in creation in general. Wild animals and all domestic animals serve a purpose as God intended. One is no more important than another, as no human is more important than another. We have our place in creation and animals as well as this is the order of things as God saw fit. We should all have compassion for all living creatures and realize no animal was made superior to humans and that humans always take precedence over animals. Thank you. God bless all humans and their pets!!!

Animals evolved by evolution and have no pre-defined purpose or place. Religion facilitates speciesism.

How can someone simultaneously uphold the idea of evolution and the idea that ‘speciesism’ (or ANYTHING else) is morally wrong? If you believe in evolution, you believe that every living creature in the universe merely evolved through the processes of natural selection and survival of the fittest (according to Darwin). If you ALSO believe that ‘speciesism’ is somehow morally wrong, you are committing two fallacies: One, the idea that blind natural forces came together by chance to form the world does not leave any room for the existence of a moral standard that humans are somehow not living up to. What standard are you comparing us to when you condemn anything as ‘wrong’ if there is nothing else to the universe besides a bunch of atoms bouncing around? Two, if you were to say that natural selection and survival of the fittest were not only INEVITABLE but NECESSARY for the progression of nature, you would then have no problem with one species prioritizing their own kind over another. In fact, this is to be expected if survival of the fittest is indeed the predominant factor in evolution. How in the world could a species survive if they didn’t put more importance in their own safety than in the safety of another species? Lastly, if speciesism really is wrong, every single animal on the face of the planet is a perpetrator. there isn’t one species on earth that does not prioritize its own kind over another. The continuation of any species depends on this, in fact. DISCLAIMER: i do not necessarily agree with natural selection or evolution, or that ‘speciesism’ is justifiable. I am merely pointing out that the two points you are arguing are mutually exclusive.

God created animals so man wouldn’t be lonely. It was never about food.

Being able to regurgitate the “story” of creation doesn’t make you credible in telling about one. Your statement “God bless all humans and their pets,” is actually a prime example of speciesism itself. As long as you do not escape the anthropocentric justifications of inflicting unnecessary harm and suffering on other sentient beings, you will never see the picture as it actually is.

Your post reminded me of Thomas Nagel’s review in the London Review of Books (Vol. 28 No.9 11 May 2006) of Bernard William’s last three posthumously published books. I will quote at length the relevant passage.

‘The Human Prejudice is a major essay, previously unpublished, analysing and defending our special concern for our fellow humans. Williams wonders mischievously whether Peter Singer, a leading critic of such ‘speciesism’, feels uncomfortable about his position as a professor at Princeton’s Center for Human Values: ‘I should have thought it would have sounded to him rather like a Center for Aryan Values.’ Williams’s main point is that being partial to humanity does not require a belief in the absolute importance of human beings. There is no cosmic point of view, and therefore no test of cosmic significance that we can either pass or fail. Those who criticise the privileged position of human beings in our ethical thought are confused:

“They suppose that we are in effect saying, when we exercise these distinctions between human beings and other creatures, that human beings are more important, period, than those other creatures. That objection is simply a mistake . . . These actions and attitudes need express no more than the fact that human beings are more important to us, a fact which is hardly surprising.”

‘So humanism is just a form of group loyalty. Williams doesn’t suggest that this warrants our brutality towards other species or complete indifference to their suffering, but he thinks our partiality to those who share our form of life does not need justification. He illustrates this with a wonderful science-fiction fantasy of superior but disgusting visitors from outer space. And he concludes:

“When the hope is to improve humanity to the point at which every aspect of its hold on the world can be justified before a higher court, the result is likely to be either self-deception, if you think you have succeeded, or self-hatred and self-contempt when you recognise that you will always fail. The self-hatred, in this case, is a hatred of humanity. Personally I think that there are many things to loathe about human beings, but their sense of their ethical identity as a species is not one of them.”

“So humanism is just a form of group loyalty. Williams doesn’t suggest that this warrants our brutality towards other species or complete indifference to their suffering, but he thinks our partiality to those who share our form of life does not need justification.”

Having an instinctual partiality toward humanity over animals is understandable, and can in many circumstances be a harmless partiality, but it is very common for that partiality to transform into a sense of unjustified superiority. If one closes off any further consideration with, “our partiality…. does not need justification,” it sets the stage for making serious ethical blunders when the greater moral significance of an animal’s interests is pitted against the lesser interests of a human, as in the case of needless meat consumption or cosmetics testing. So even if we do not need to justify our feelings of partiality, we still must justify many of our behaviors resulting from partiality since partiality is not in itself a form of justification.

Since I haven’t read the book I cannot say if this point was neglected, but the partial quotation left enough doubt I thought I’d address it here.

>>but he thinks our partiality to those who share our form of life does not need justification<<

The amazing thing about being human is that we have the capacity for introspection about why we do something and how to do it better. To declare that something "does not need justification" is a way to shun this wonderful capacity that we have. Whether or not we will ever succeed in living completely "justified" existences is besides the point; the goal of a good life in my opinion is to keep trying. Of course we will fail – the human life and mind are paradoxical. But to take things for granted as they are is a less desirable state of being.

Clearly an area that needs more research . From my perspective I was taught as a child that dogs are dirty , and that human beings are made in shape of god . This was Islamic teaching which I gave rejected along with any paradiagm that puts any living thing as somehow inferior to us . Perhaps one approach would be to look at neurobiology , all mammals , birds and many marine creatures ( not all ) have very similar neural network with similar limbus system that allows them to feel pain and fear death and hurt along with other emotions that some people deemed only experienced by humans alone . This is not the case . So it’s important to encourage the next generation to view all living things with the current scientific findings . Personally I don’t feel Comfortable eating any animal or harming any for my survival or pleasure ie eating them because they taste good. I find it distressing that others do even though their survival is not reliant on this . Add to this the chimerical nature of animal products and industry , we get significant animal welfare issues . All of which has enormous impact to our planet , including the death of the humble bee . We need to change our approach and learn from patadiagms such as bhuddism whereby life is respected no matter how simple or complex

I believe that being a vegetarian is good, but being an extremist vegetarian is bad, completely removing meat from your diet can have bad influences on your body, especially considering that most, if not all, plants are low in saturated fat which is required to survive, so eating animals for survival, or because they taste good, is more than just because people want to kill animals and eat them, it is also for literally living

I’m just wondering if someone happens to know of an effective charity which comes to the aid of cockroaches, slugs and termites – the article has convinced me that I have been guilty of speciesism and that I ought to make amends for mistakenly making (admittedly very small, but misguided) contributions destined for humans.

At least we are not artificially inseminating and bringing cockroaches, slugs and termites into this world for the sole purpose of using them.

This is a typical comment against veganism, much like a carnist saying “hey, plants are living beings, too.” The thing here is that when survival or well-being is threatened, it is natural to protect ourselves. I don’t think many people would argue that if a bear is attacking you that you would do what you needed to survive. If my kitchen is overrun with bugs and it’s making my family sick, I do think that it’s understandable to control that. I don’t believe my life is more important than a cockroach, but in the same way all animals naturally want to preserve their own lives, we also instinctually want to protect our environment from disease and threat. Speciesism is when you ideologically believe that the cockroach or bear only has a right to exist in the relationship to humans, not in their own right. Killing a spider for no other reason than “eww, a spider!” or hunting bear because that’s “what we do in this family” or internalizing the sad, old, convenient Christian doctrine of “this god gave us dominion over animals” is speciesism. I wouldn’t say a bobcat fighting one coyote over a meal, or cleaning its own fur of fleas, is speciesist because that is ridiculous. When we systematically destroy and/or enslave entire communities and animal species for greed, profit, sport, gluttony, or out of irrational fear, well, that is speciesism.

“If we consider racism to be wrong, and know that racism and speciesism are psychologically related, this might make us question whether speciesism shouldn’t be considered wrong as well.”

This seems like a stretch. The neotenic aspects of human male sexual attraction to females are pretty well-documented, and a decent argument could be made that it is a misapplication or over-extension of this that leads to paedophilia, are we to therefore find a preference for large eyes and small chins in women disgusting because it is “psychologically related” to paedophilia? I think not.

You could argue that having a preference for such and such traits are indicative of being a pedophile to varying degrees. Okay. This would be in their heads still just as having a prejudice toward someone solely based on his or her race is wrong. When it comes to animals, however, we breed them on a massive scale and actually abuse them. “Prejudice is different from discrimination.” We inflict a great suffering on their individual lives by bringing them into existence for the sole purpose of using them not to mention the detrimental environmental impact the animal farming causes. We cannot neglect the environmental and practical aspects of consuming animals when talking about the philosophical aspects because we are talking about the animals on this particular planet and it carries a high potential for serious consequences. When we see the slaughterhouse footage, our natural tendency is to be disgusted and horrified instead of to be hungry and content or assured of our every contributions to the violent acts. The main point author is making, in other words, is that many of us fail to see the prejudice and injustice when they are part of the system we ourselves participate in and rely on to maintain our state of deep trance.

I’m afraid I have not read Williams’ essay or Nagel’s review, but, while I agree that speciesism can be understood in terms of identification with and preference for one’s “own group,” I would point out that the same can be said for racism, sexism, and for that matter nationalism, and that when such “group loyalty” translates into harmful treatment of others, it does indeed call for justification, assuming any can be had. Moreover, that we humans exhibit a predisposition to identify so strongly with certain subgroupings of our own species can be seen as a primate characteristic, one which places us squarely within the spectrum of animal life, not “above” it–although our “wonderful capacity” to consider what we do and make moral choices about it can be considered a counterbalancing, species-specific characteristic, at least when we choose to exercise it.

I don’t quite get where Williams is coming from in finding “many things to loathe about human beings,” and I hope he is not accusing those critical of speciesism of having a “hatred of humanity” here, but if he is, it will not be unlike accusing those who suggest that we humans rein in our population growth as well as our growing aggregate consumption in the interests of maintaining biospherical life of “hating human beings.” Nothing could be further from the truth. It seems clear that limitless growth in either one is both a logical and a biological impossibility within a finite system, and since our human species depends for its own existence upon the integrity of that system, clear-sighted species loyalty would advocate that we overcome our anthropocentrism and start putting the biosphere first among our decision-making priorities. (I take it that “speciesism” is being used here to refer to discriminatory attitudes and behavior at the individual level, “anthropocentrism” analogously at the species level, although these terms are often used interchangeably.)

Obviously it is not possible to give full of an explanation of Williams’s objections to what Nagel’s described as ‘the view from nowhere’ in a short post. The problems of this ‘position’ spans the history of philosophy, mathematics, science and the arts, and is of particular interest now when the problem of “machine intelligence” has remerged. In modern times, it can be found, in part, in philosophical approaches that have used terms such as Lebenszusammenhang,lebenswelt, doxa, atomic facts, form of life, Dasein/ Being-in-the-World, knowing-how, etc.. Williams and Nagel would say “in very small part”, but, as the following quote from Williams shows, he does take a similar position to that taken by the many Continental philosophers.

“The belief that you can look critically at all your dispositions from the outside, from the point of view of the universe, assumes that you could understand your own and other people’s dispositions from that point of view without tacitly taking for granted a picture of the world more locally familiar than any that would be available from there; but neither the psychology nor the history of ethical reflection gives much reason to believe that the theoretical reasonings of the cool hour can do without a sense of the moral shape of the world, of the kind given in everyday dispositions.”

When Williams says, “human beings are more important ‘to us’, a fact which is hardly surprising”, he is saying that we cannot forget or try to get behind this fact. (I would not use the word ‘fact’ without some explanation, but here is not the place for further explanation.) This does not prevent us from analysing our understanding and treatment of animals, nor should it stop us from recognising in ourselves and others the difference between our ‘prejudice’ towards animals and prejudices towards humans like racism. We should not, therefore, make following error.

The Lucius Caviola et al claim their study is not concerned with the normativity of speciesism and is confined to a description of speciesism as “psychological phenomenon”. However, they also claim that all forms speciesism is a ‘prejudice’ that is coextensive with “racism, sexism, homophobia along with ideological constructs associated with prejudice such as social dominance orientation”. The post finishes, as Alan Duval points out, with “[if] we consider racism to be wrong, and know that racism and speciesism are psychologically related, this might make us question speciesism shouldn’t be considered wrong as well”. So it would appear that speciesism is morally wrong because this ‘descriptive’ study has linked it with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.. This is, of course, hardly surprising, for the authors accept in their paper that “[s]peciesism manifests itself in the near-universal belief that humans are intrinsically more valuable than individuals of other species.” Given that speciesism is near-universal, we will obviously find it in racist, sexist and just about every other group we wish to identify; which means we cannot make the inference that it is morally wrong because racism is moral wrong any more than we can make the inference that it is morally right because there are morally right groups that are also speciesists.

To me, it seems perfectly raeasonable to favour some life forms over other life forms. That does mean I enjoy killing rats and mice, culling squirrels, or swatting flies, but they have to be done, especially if you live in the country as I do. I prefer my dog to other dogs, and I may indeed express this prejudice if it came to choosing to save the life of my dog over that of another dog. I would never place the life of my dog above that of a human’s. I was a vegetarian but now eat a small amount of meat which mostly comes from the surrounding hilly land that is not arable. In short, I give my ‘speciesism’ some thought and would like others to do the same. Of course, I understand how this ‘prejudice’ may become confused in the minds of some people who are racially prejudice, not least because the distortions of scientific racism are still with us. But the notion that my so-called speciesism is morally equivalent to racism is a grotesque distortion and, if it ever were to be seriously believed, could lead some, as Willaims says, to self-hatred and self-contempt.

Keith Tayler, I see you rather completely ignore the issues that I find most interesting: that racism, sexism, nationalism, and speciesism are, to different degrees, manifestations of “own-group loyalty,” and also that we humans, as a species, if we do not soon change our ways, are on a collision course with the finitude of the biosphere. I see a great deal wrong with racism, sexism, and speciesim insofar as these prejudicial attitudes can result in a great deal of suffering on the part of human and/or nonhuman individuals, as the case may be. But, morally offensive as these may be, they generally constitute stable situations–dark-skinned people aren’t usually (though there may be exceptions) threatened with all-out genocide by racist attitudes and practices, and farm animals continue to be “produced” in great numbers, though their suffering in confinement operations may be great; nationalism is the one exception to these group-identification-generated prejudicial attitudes, since in the extreme case the ever-present potential for nuclear war does threaten humans and nonhumans alike with extirpation from the Earth.

The anthropocentrism that has us acting as though we humans can expand our numbers and the toll our increasingly ravenous consumption takes on nonhuman habitats and nonhuman organisms generally, all around the planet, however, is not something that is manifested as part of a stable situation, i.e., something about which one might say, “yes, well, it’s too bad many people feel that way and orient themselves such that the harm this attitude does to other beings gets ignored, but given another generation or two, with education and enlightened discourse, it will eventually lessen,” as one might say with respect to racism and sexism. Frankly put, we do not have TIME to wait for this to happen, since the present state of our technology is allowing us to destroy huge chunks of habitat and destabilize critical planetary systems at an increasingly rapid rate. And yes, I am well aware of the criticisms that have been made, by Continental philosophers and others, of the possibility of “seeing oneself from the outside” of the common, culturally conditioned, egocentric point of view, but I have come to see this position as largely one of seeking to justify quite a large amount of intellectual denial on the part of those who assert it. OF COURSE one can look at one’s own trajectory through life as if “from afar”–Iain McGilchrist terms our ability to make this move one of adopting the “necessary distance,” and links it to the remarkable expansion of our frontal lobes in recent evolution, which makes it possible–and, similarly, we can make the effort to see the trajectory of our human species as we have come to dominate the systems of the Earth in what scientists are now terming the Anthropocene epoch. We’ve all become accustomed to seeing those J-curves–all ultimately driven by that ominous J-curve of human population growth–all over the place, heralding (once we dare to step out of our short-term, what’s-good-for-me-today “locally familiar picture of the world”) specific processes that, if continued, are manifestly unsustainable. Seeing ourselves in the larger context is not only possible, it’s necessary if we are to have any hope at all of pulling ourselves and the rest of Life on Earth out of the present extinction-spiral. Unfortunately, many philosophers, trained exclusively in a syllogistic logic that cares little about the empirical accuracy of its premisses, seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that we humans are the perpetrators of the sixth major extinction spasm ever to grip this planet–arguably the Greatest Moral Wrong of which we are collectively capable, since it kills at a level of grouping far beyond that of human subgroupings, even as it ultimately will, if not halted, obliterate all of these as well.

Ronnie Hawkins: I was not just replying to you (I didn’t use the ‘Reply’ on your post), but I did include some of the points you raised. I think I did cover the issue of linking speciesism with racism, sexism, etc. by outlining the non sequitur in the paper. I understand your concerns about our planet, but they cannot be used to criticise my position because, as I said, I do not accept that it means I am acting immorally or mistreating animals. Obviously I cannot give a full exposition of this position in a short post, but I can assure I have been living within the ‘one planet’ limit for decades and do not go around trashing the planet.

I think you are somewhat confused about this position and especially its history within Continental philosophy. There were from at least the early 20th century Continental philosophers who were highly critical of the way science and technology used the Earth as, so to speak, an ‘exploitable resource’. Their thinking, that was essentially that of criticising the view from nowhere position of science and technology, was rejected then and now. To suggest they were or are engaged in intellectual denial is simply not true. Some of them were and are anti-science, but, just as there is scientism, bad science and pseudo-science to be found among scientist, we should not simplistically reject the position just because some have misused it to mount an attack upon all science.

You seem to think I and others are say you cannot, as you put it, ‘look at one’s own trajectory through life as if “from afar”’. Of course it is possible; what we are saying is that this position is not always the best position to understand the world, especially when considering our moral disposition. We should nonetheless never forget our own view point when doing mathematics, logic, science, technology or any ‘systems’ discipline (much of the most interesting and intractable issues in the philosophy of science emerge from ‘positional’ problems).

Finally, I can assure you that at no time have philosophers been ‘trained exclusively in syllogistic logic’.

I’m not convinced that there is a “non sequitur” in the paper; looks to me like Keith Tayler is the one who tried to make a move from “is” to “ought,” if that’s the idea.

True, some Continental philosophers have been “highly critical of the way science and technology used the Earth as, so to speak, an ‘exploitable resource,’” as have many philosophers (a growing number, I hope) on the other side of the Atlantic. But the context in which this “view from nowhere” charge is leveled by Williams (or is it Nagel?): “There is no cosmic point of view, and therefore no test of cosmic significance that we can either pass or fail. Those who criticise the privileged position of human beings in our ethical thought are confused” is clearly meant to discourage people from considering the abundant evidence from science that attests to our human continuity with other forms of life and the remarkable intelligence of many organisms that our culture has heretofore demeaned. Science does not have to be coming from”a cosmic point of view.” The primatologists and cognitive ethologists, among others, who have been busily correcting our species-centered arrogance are very much human beings with their own, situated points of view. And, in part because of their work, our culture IS changing–“the fact that human beings are more important to us” is not necessarily a “fact” that we all share.

Moreover, dismissing the paper with the claim that it is guilty of a “non sequitur” is a very good example of a philosopher (though please note I said “many” phuilosophers, since not all do fall into this category) being more concerned about “logic” than about the empirical accuracy of what is being proposed.

We are going round in circles, but I will have one last attempt to clarify this ‘position’.

Firstly, it was Nagel who wrote a book entitled ‘The View from Nowhere’ and Williams in his book ‘Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy’ that continued his criticism of ethical thinking that takes this ‘external’ position. If you read either of these works, I would hope you would not subsequently make the claim that their work was “clearly meant to discourage people from considering the abundant evidence from science that attest to our human continuity with other forms of life…” Their work, inter alia, is explicitly directed to getting people to think about these issues. You may disagree with them, but please do not suggest they are deliberately discouraging people from thinking about these issues. Neither Williams nor Nagel are in the slightest anyway anti-science, but they are anti-scientism and simplistic rationalisation.

As to the “non sequitur” problem: I thought I made it clear that the authors stated their paper was confined to a description of speciesism as a “psychological phenomenon” and was not normative. However, they then went on to suggest that because racism is morally wrong we should question whether speciesism is also morally wrong because they were “psychologically related”. The problem is that they found speciesism to be “near-universal”, which means of course that just about all human ‘prejudices’ – be they morally bad or good – are to be found in the class of speciesism prejudice. Indeed, the inference they draw can be stood on its head. If, as is evident, the vast majority of humans believe speciesism if morally correct, does that not suggest that racism, sexism, etc., are also morally correct? Of course, such an inference is just as nonsensical as the original inference.

Picking out the bad prejudices and then suggesting speciesism is bad because it is related to them is nonsense unless you have found evidence that all ‘prejudice’ is morally wrong. Here again there may be some confusion about the pejorative and non-pejorative meaning of ‘prejudice’. Obviously not all prejudice is morally wrong, but, at the level of data and explanation of the authors’ paper, there is no way they can making a meaningful distinction between the types of human prejudice.

Not sure why you believe philosophy should be able to do without logic. ‘Empirical evidence’ without logical inference and reason cannot exist for they are required, for example, when determining what counts as good or bad evidence. It is not possible to do science without logic and mathematics (I am not saying mathematics is reducible to logic). Philosophers study logic (syllogistic logic fell out of favour in the 19th century), many, as in my case, to understand the limits and the failure of what might be called the ‘logic project’ of the late 19th early 20th century. Most philosopher do not ‘just’ use logic, they try to understand its strengths and weaknesses.

I am familiar with Nagel’s work but not that of Williams in this regard. I was not claiming that “their work” was “clearly meant to discourage people [from considering scientific evidence],” I was stating that, in my experience, the criticism that certain understandings come from “a view from nowhere” or a “god’s eye view” is often–not always–USED in such a way as to cast doubt on a certain scientific finding, as if the intersubjective agreement among scientists (sometimes termed “objective”) has somehow been presumed, as in this particular case, to be coming from “a cosmic point of view”; since such a view is not to be had, the implication is that the observation is to be disregarded, or that considering a situation in light of such evidence is somehow illegitimate. I do find that to be the case here, at least insofar as the Williams/Nagel position has been presented in the context of this blog. (An attempt to dismiss the viewpoint that conceptualizes the growing human population and its growing consumption of the rest of the living world, and that considers relationships among species to be a morally relevant level of concern, is sometimes made on similar grounds.)

It is also the case that, historically, a large percentage of people, very likely the majority in most societies, have held racist, sexist, ethnocentric and homophobic attitudes; many still do today, as even a slight familiarity with the news will make evident. The fact that a growing number of people now seem to think that such attitudes are not morally correct reflects a cultural change. Many factors may have been at play in bringing this change about, from personal interaction with people of other races, cultures, genders, and sexual proclivities to intellectual consideration being given the fact that we humans are all members of one species, with far more in common than our differences, this latter realization possibly bolstered by exposure to scientific evidence of our similarities. Overcoming racism can be conceptualized as transcending the boundary demarcating one’s “own group” as that marking the limit of moral concern to recognize the boundary demarcating the human species as this limit. Overcoming speciesism can similarly be conceptualized as transcending the species boundary to recognize the even larger circle inclusive of all living organisms as the appropriate limit of moral concern, and it too may come about as a result of a number of factors, from personal interaction with other orgamisms to consideration of scientific evidence. When Caviola et al. say “If we consider racism to be wrong, and know that racism and speciesism are psychologically related, this might make us question whether speciesism shouldn’t be considered wrong as well,” they are NOT moving from “is” to “ought,” nor are they guilty of a “non sequitur”: they are SUGGESTING that we consider the similarity in thinking that marks all of these attitudes. And Williams, in my view, is right on target by declaring speciesism/anthropocentrism as “a form of group loyalty”; indeed, just as speciesists, standing on the “majority rule” of the current status quo, can unashamedly declare “human beings are more important TO US,” so can outspoken racists declare, e.g., “white people are more important TO US” (and so might closet racists, should they be honest with themselves). Regarding the issue of cultural change, moreover, the original research paper by Caviola et al. notes (p. 11 in pdf) that “the observation that speciesism correlated negatively with actively open-minded thinking supports our assumption that those who accept antispeciesism are more willing to think beyond contemporary social norms.”

At no point, however, did I say that philosophy (or science) should do without logic (and I am beginning to notice a distinct tendency for words to be incorrectly put in other people’s mouths here, in lieu of attempting to present the other person’s position fairly and address it). What I am pointing out seems to be a kind of confabulatory response that I have observed, made by some (not all!) philosophers (but often by those with little familiarity with the relevant science), to bat away a scientific point–to hit it back over the tennis net without considering it further–by trying to find fault with “the logic” of an argument–the correctness of the starting assumptions, ie., the actual facts of the matter, be damned. While I have seen little or no direct acknowledgment of the scientific evidence for ontological continuity among lifeforms here in this discussion—an “is” that might well influence an informed decision as to what our “oughts” should be—I have had a distinct sense of tennis balls whizzing by my head.

I think we have done the Caviola et al paper to death. They explicitly stated that their paper was confined to a descriptive “psychological phenomenon” and then engage in chopped logic to suggest that near-universal speciesism could be morally wrong because it is psychologically related to racism which is morally wrong. I am quite prepared to accept the possibility (but not on the evidence of the paper), that some racist might link their racism with their speciesism and/or such a link could be found, but that in itself would not make ‘all’ speciesism morally. I strongly disagree with most speciesists, but, for the sake of the arguments, am prepared to be identified as a speciesist. I am quite clear in my mind that my speciesism is not related to racism because I believe all humans are equal, i.e. we are all persons of equal value and have moral agency. I therefore have reject the authors’ and your assumption.

At the risk of being accused of playing intellectual tennis, I place very little credence in psychology studies that get self-selecting groups to answer a few questions and then go on to conclude that “the observation that speciesism correlates negatively with actively open-minded thinking supporting our assumption that those who accept antispeciesism are more willing to think beyond contemporary social norms”. This type of bias speculation might at best meet the journalistic standards of a tabloid press “survey”. Okay, not a great fan of psychology – to quote a famous philosopher on psychology “[the] problem and the method pass one another by.”

I recognise that I have a shared evolution with all lifeforms and that I share much of my DNA and habitat with animals (as I do with plants, viruses, etc.), but I do not recognise animals as persons having moral agency. Although I have used science to inform my ethical beliefs, I reject what I believe to be the irrationalism that many scientists have about animals and the unethical use of animals by science. My objection to vivisection, for example, can perhaps be summed up by: If animals are required for experimentation because they are physiologically and/or psychologically ‘close’ to us, it would in most cases be unethical to use them because of their ‘closeness’, If they are not ‘close’ to us, they are of doubtful use to science and therefore in most cases it would be unethical to harm them by experimentation. That is not say that ‘closeness’ includes any meaningful sense of personhood and moral agency. There are also far too many scientists involved in the antibiotic, growth hormone and genetic modification factory farming industry.

Making a distinction between humans and animals is not the same as making a distinction between human and human. When some scientists claim they have found evidence that it is and are backed by the arguments of some philosophers, I have to look at the evidence, methodology and arguments. This is what philosophy is about. It is about, as you put it, ‘trying to find fault with “the logic” of an argument’ (the insertion of “the logic” is somewhat dated now), or pointing out that little or nothing of any meaning has been stated, or that a category mistake has been made, etc.. Philosophy is not a branch of science that accepts the “actual facts of the matter”, for it is by no means clear that we agree what a ‘fact’ is, or indeed that it exists (in philosophy we never found an ‘atomic fact’). Nor do some philosophers forget the mistakes of science or indeed philosophy. The (mis)use of statistics and (misunderstanding) of evolution theory (in some instances by Darwin) gave us scientific racism, eugenics and, so to speak, ‘colonial’ zoology and botany. These were all founded upon what were then ‘starting assumption’ and ‘facts’.

You say you have “seen little or no direct acknowledgement of the scientific evidence for ontological for continuity among lifeforms here in the discussions”. My earlier reference to Continental philosophy was directed towards their ontological approach. As I pointed out, this approach is fraught with difficulties and can quickly become anti-science or worse. Within mainstream science we should never forget the dangers of the shift from the ‘is’ to the ‘ought’. That is not to say we should not cautiously consider whether we have moved to a point where we can make a meaningful ‘ought’. However, on the matter of speciesism, I see nothing in science that leads me to believe we have reached such a point so I will continue to look upon animals from my ethical position.

I have enjoyed our little exchange of views and hope we can at least agree to disagree. Time is always short, so I think this must be the last have to say on this issue and will have to take my ball home 🙂

You know, I do a lot of thinking about what could possibly lead us to stop our headlong rush into the Anthropocene, with all its mega-technology and the desperate dash to embrace “the next new thing”—new roads being cut through the Amazon, a generation of un-evolved, CRISPR-engineered organisms about to be released, a new technology for bigger, faster pig slaughter, 50 million wading birds facing extermination with the “reclamation” of the Yellow Sea tidal flats by South Korea and China (see “Saemangeum”), escalating habitat destruction enabled by executive contravention of land use laws in a place I used to call home, to name just a few with implications for Life on the planet that have come by me recently. It seems we humans have a tendency to appreciate our own tools and the things we have constructed far more than we do the workings of nature, and of course we can also better understand the things we have made (because we made them! and this includes language and our socially constructed symbol-systems) than we can the complex workings of nature, which we now interfere with ignorantly and at our peril. Since I care about humans as well as nonhumans, I hope for our own sakes that we find a way to stop this headlong rush—which seems, in many cases, to be driven by the desire to “make money” (there’s a phrase that could use some philosophical analysis!) and probably by the feeling of being “in competition” with conspecifics, a biological driver—because our present trajectory is clearly not a sustainable path for any of us living things. But short-sighted human interest—on the part of individuals, of subgroupings, or of our entire species, conceived in abstraction from its ecological context—seems not to have an internally generated limit (witness the widely held if unspoken notion that we—our species or our own favorite subgrouping, be it by race, ethnicity, nation-state, etc—can grow in numbers and in material consumption without end); after all, how could there be too much of a good thing (meaning us, and the objects of our “preference satisfaction”? Memories of Derek Parfit’s “Repugnant Conclusion” dance in my head.)

If an external limit were to be recognized, however—a moral limit on how much we could take away from the natural world, a moral limit on the extent to which we could legitimately impact the lives of other beings (given the different ecological roles we all evolved to fill)—perhaps there would be an activation of the sorts of neurological pathways that lead most of us to limit the swinging of an arm well before it strikes another human’s face. A few philosophers (the paucity of their numbers being remarkable in itself) have been arguing for a reining-in of this headlong rush in the face of accelerating climate change and the difficulties it will predictably generate for future human beings, but apparently the displacement in time is sufficient to dampen the effects of this moral concern. Nonhuman life, on the other hand, is being drastically affected NOW, and in ways many people are beginning to appreciate, whether it’s by noticing a sharp diminution in bees and other insects the place they live or by seeing lurid pictures of animal abuse and rampant ecological destruction on Facebook. It is possible that our social media will eventually provide, if not a “cosmic view,” enough of a LOOK AT OURSELVES to see what we’re doing “from the outside,” not just from within our self-justifying belief systems, and to be appalled by it. (The bull in the china shop wakes up—Gee, I caused ALL THAT DAMAGE???) When you actually care about “the Other,” whatever form that “Other” takes, paying attention to where your swinging arm touches down ceases to be a chore and becomes a welcome responsibility, perhaps even an act of love.

It seems there was a time when many humans of our western culture recognized something greater than themselves, a something that they revered; they called it God, and recognized the Creation as something to be treated with respect, if not with awe. In my understanding, this attitude was fairly widespread up through the time of Newton and his contemporaries, although the subsequent scientific/industrial revolution, with its billiard-ball metaphysics, Cartesian caricature of animals as machines and an economism that replaced “God” with “money,” rather quickly made short shrift of it. We seem to be increasingly enclosed within a belief-bubble that is now exclusively centered on “US,” with nothing of importance lying outside its bounds. I sense a growing realization that something is missing, however, a dim awareness that perhaps there IS something Other than ourselves that is of value—we’re not “all alone in the universe,” after all. And I see the very fact that psychologists have seen fit to recognize and devise a scale for measuring speciesism/anthropocentrism as evidence of a coming moral awakening. I only hope it comes in time.

In response to “confused reader”— Well, I’m not a reductionist, so I don’t actually believe that “blind natural forces came together by chance” to create the world we live in, nor do I believe that “there is nothing else to the universe besides a bunch of atoms bouncing around”—though you are correct that many people do seem still to hold on to that outmoded metaphysical cartoon, a legacy of the mechanistic paradigm embraced following the success of Newtonian physics several centuries ago. We are still far from understanding what Life is, though we have made great progress in recognizing its enormous complexity in recent times, much of it since the turn of the millennium, following great leaps forward in genomics, proteomics, molecular and cell biology, neural connectivity, et cetera. While many subdisciplines in the biological sciences still tend to be locally “mechanistic,” other subdisciplines necessarily take the opposite approach, notably ecology, organismic biology, ethology, psychology, and so on, moving toward a global holism. There is a robust “re-emergence of [interest in] emergence,” to quote the title of a fairly recent book, and a growing number of studies are starting to show evidence of what is sometimes called “top-down causation” operative at the same time as “bottom-up causation” within living organisms. “Causation,” however, seems to be an increasingly problematic term, since it does tend to conjure the mindlessly bumping billiard balls, and—thanks to our culture’s ingrained anthropocentrism— it often gets treated as an exclusive contrast class, dualistically opposed to linguistically formulated, belief-desire human “action,” leaving all nonhuman organisms still conceived in the mold of mindless Cartesian machines, as if never the twain shall meet. Fortunately, thanks to newer generations of field biologists, primatologists, cognitive ethologists, and others willing to pay close attention to nonhuman lifeforms with an openness to their potentialities, we are discovering among them some remarkable powers of communication and awareness that are steadily undermining the stultifying reductionistic-mechanistic-deterministic paradigm that has for so long stoked our species-ego, allowing us to go on clinging to the delusion that we are the only intelligent beings in the known universe. I have thus come to hold a very different metaphysical picture than the one left over from the days of Newton and Descartes. I believe that Life is an inner-directed, self-organizing phenomenon that has unfolded on Earth over the last three to four billion years, diversifying into our magnificent Biosphere, each living organism being, in the words of Paul Taylor, a “teleological center of life,” pursuing its own good in its own way, and that “mind”—the awareness needed to grasp one’s environmental context and devise an appropriate response to it—is coextensive with life (Evan Thompson’s Mind in Life provides a good exposition of this view). I also reject the “survival of the fittest” cartoon that considers competition to be the exclusive “mechanism” driving the evolutionary process, since there is a great deal of mutualism, cooperation, and yes, even empathy and compassion that can be discerned in nature, once you break out of the old machine-model. I do, however, recognize that our own species’ evolution has produced an organism that is cognitively unique in certain respects, one of them being that it is capable of prospectively evaluating its intended actions and making moral decisions about them weighing their effects on other living beings—i.e., that human individuals have moral agency. But I disagree with Kant’s assertion that the possession of moral agency is necessary for the possession of moral worth, rather recognizing a large class of “moral patients,” including human infants, humans with mental impairment, and many kinds of nonhuman animals, as beings capable of experiencing pain and pleasure and fully deserving of respectful and compassionate treatment regardless of their inability to carry out moral decision making themselves. Clearly, then, my metaphysical/ontological understanding of the world we live in is quite different from yours (or at least from the supposedly “scientific” picture of the world you seem to be sketching), and therefore the starting assumptions in my ethical reasoning lead me to reject anthropocentrism/speciesism as heartily as I would reject racism, sexism and homophobia. I believe there is a coherence to a Life-centered philosophy that is lacking in the anthropocentric worldview, which imposes a dualistic divide between humans and all other lifeforms in order to shore up our human self-importance. And one final point—in conceiving of the universe itself as an unfolding, self-evolving system, and taking Life in all its forms to be of ultimate value, there is no need to postulate a humanlike “God” that is somehow separate from the universe, creating it as a passive artifact of “molecules in motion,” let alone imagining an all-powerful father-figure dictating our morality “from above” and punishing those of us who “disobey.” A Life-centered philosophy places the responsibility for choosing our actions wisely and compassionately squarely on us, as the “dependent, rational animals” that we are, in the terminology of Alasdair MacIntyre.

Comments are closed.

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access only $1 for 4 weeks.

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, ft professional, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• FT App on Android & iOS
• FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
• 20+ curated newsletters
• Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
• FT Videos & Podcasts
• 20 monthly gift articles to share
• Lex: FT's flagship investment column
• 15+ Premium newsletters by leading experts
• FT Digital Edition: our digitised print edition
• Weekday Print Edition
• Videos & Podcasts
• Premium newsletters
• 10 additional gift articles per month
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Everything in Premium Digital

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• 10 monthly gift articles to share
• Everything in Print
• Make and share highlights
• FT Workspace
• Markets data widget
• Subscription Manager
• Workflow integrations
• Occasional readers go free
• Volume discount

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

PETA: the Principles and Impact of Ethical Animal Treatment

This essay is about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and their impact on animal rights. It explains how PETA advocates against the use of animals for food, fashion, testing, and entertainment. PETA promotes veganism, cruelty-free fashion, alternative testing methods, and better treatment of animals in entertainment. The essay discusses PETA’s controversial yet effective campaigns, highlighting their role in raising awareness and driving change in consumer behavior and industry practices. It also notes PETA’s educational efforts to support individuals in making ethical choices and advocating for animal rights.

How it works

PETA, an acronym for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, embodies a paradigm of animal rights advocacy. Conceived in 1980 by Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco, PETA has burgeoned into an eminent and formidable force in the global sphere of animal rights activism. Its overarching objective is to delineate and safeguard the rights of all sentient beings, operating under the cardinal tenet that animals are not chattels to be consumed, donned, experimented upon, exploited for amusement, or subjected to maltreatment in any guise.

A cornerstone of PETA’s modus operandi is to engender public cognizance regarding the plight of animals across diverse industries. This encompasses the food industry, where animals endure abysmal conditions, endure barbaric treatment, and meet their demise through methods inflicting profound suffering. PETA advocates for a plant-based regimen, espousing the virtues of veganism not solely for ethical considerations but also for health and ecological sustainability. Their initiatives frequently feature luminaries and incendiary campaigns engineered to captivate public attention and provoke contemplation on the ethical ramifications of consuming animal-derived products.

In tandem with their dietary advocacy, PETA sets its sights on the fashion domain. The organization wages campaigns against the utilization of fur, leather, wool, and other animal-derived textiles. Through clandestine investigations, public demonstrations, and media blitzes, PETA exposes the inhumane practices underpinning the procurement of these materials. They have played a pivotal role in persuading myriad designers, retailers, and consumers to embrace cruelty-free alternatives. PETA’s endeavors have precipitated a seismic shift in the fashion landscape, with numerous prominent brands now offering and endorsing vegan and cruelty-free merchandise.

Animal experimentation constitutes another pivotal focal point of PETA’s endeavors. The organization staunchly opposes the exploitation of animals in scientific research, cosmetic testing, and other experimental undertakings. PETA champions alternative methodologies devoid of animal involvement, such as in vitro testing, computational modeling, and human-patient simulators. Through lobbying endeavors, funding initiatives for alternative methodologies, and exposés of malfeasance within research laboratories, PETA has made considerable headway in curbing the employment of animals in experimentation and ameliorating conditions for those still subjected to such procedures.

PETA’s sphere of influence extends into the entertainment arena. The organization campaigns against the utilization of animals in circuses, zoos, marine parks, and other forms of amusement. They contend that animals in these venues are often subjected to coercive training techniques, confined in substandard enclosures, and deprived of opportunities to engage in innate behaviors. PETA has successfully advocated for legislative measures to safeguard animals in entertainment and has persuaded numerous enterprises and institutions to eschew the utilization of animals in their spectacles.

Although PETA’s methodologies frequently court controversy, their impact on animal rights and welfare is indisputable. The organization is renowned for its audacious and at times provocative campaigns, crafted to elicit visceral reactions and galvanize attention to animal suffering. Detractors opine that PETA’s tactics verge on the extreme and that their messaging occasionally alienates potential allies. Nonetheless, proponents argue that such approaches are indispensable in spotlighting the egregious injustices faced by animals and catalyzing substantive change.

Educational outreach constitutes a salient facet of PETA’s endeavors. They furnish resources and guidance for individuals inclined towards more ethical choices, such as embracing a vegan lifestyle, opting for cruelty-free products, or advocating for animal rights within their communities. PETA’s initiatives encompass petitions, social media activism, and public demonstrations, empowering individuals to effectuate change and contribute to the cause of animal rights.

In summation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) epitomizes a vanguard in the animal rights milieu, committed to eradicating the exploitation and mistreatment of animals across sundry sectors of society. Through their campaigns targeting factory farming, the fashion industry, animal experimentation, and entertainment, PETA has markedly heightened awareness regarding animal suffering and instigated shifts in consumer behavior and industry practices. Despite the contentious nature of some of their methodologies, PETA’s steadfast dedication to advocating for animal rights has left an indelible imprint, underscoring the imperative of ethical treatment for all sentient beings.

Cite this page

PETA: The Principles and Impact of Ethical Animal Treatment. (2024, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/peta-the-principles-and-impact-of-ethical-animal-treatment/

"PETA: The Principles and Impact of Ethical Animal Treatment." PapersOwl.com , 1 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/peta-the-principles-and-impact-of-ethical-animal-treatment/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). PETA: The Principles and Impact of Ethical Animal Treatment . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/peta-the-principles-and-impact-of-ethical-animal-treatment/ [Accessed: 5 Jun. 2024]

"PETA: The Principles and Impact of Ethical Animal Treatment." PapersOwl.com, Jun 01, 2024. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/peta-the-principles-and-impact-of-ethical-animal-treatment/

"PETA: The Principles and Impact of Ethical Animal Treatment," PapersOwl.com , 01-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/peta-the-principles-and-impact-of-ethical-animal-treatment/. [Accessed: 5-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). PETA: The Principles and Impact of Ethical Animal Treatment . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/peta-the-principles-and-impact-of-ethical-animal-treatment/ [Accessed: 5-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Cruelty to Animals Essay

Introduction

Our planet Earth is a very beautiful place. Here, all the living organisms are dependent on each other and live together. We, humans, are considered as the most intelligent species on Earth. But, we sometimes become very insensitive to the creatures who cannot express themselves, especially the animals. We harm them just to fulfill our needs. We have an essay here on cruelty towards animals which will cover the questions like - write an article on cruelty towards animals, cruelty towards animals paragraph, paragraph on stop cruelty towards animals, article on cruelty towards animals class 9 and so on.

Long Paragraph on Cruelty to Animals

Animals, just like human beings, deserve a peaceful life. Animals are an important part of our ecosystem and are very useful to us. But, we sometimes forget that they are also living creatures. We keep on harassing them and these poor creatures can't even express their feelings and grief. Cruelty towards animals have become an international matter of concern. This needs to be addressed as soon as possible and should be eliminated for ever.

We become cruel towards animals for two reasons - one to fulfill our needs and other for fun. We use animals for their fur, their skin, their meat, their teeth and horns too. Sometimes, we apply colours on them which harm their skin, we also burn crackers without thinking about them. Sometimes , the tea-shop keeper pours the hot water on the street dogs, which is a great example of cruel behaviour towards the animals.

The animal skins are used in textile industries. Their skin and body hairs are used to make exotic fabrics for us to use. Animal’s teeth, horns, skin and fur are used to make home decor items which we beautifully use to decorate our homes without thinking how much pain animals go through for giving us these luxuries.

Another industry that contributes in cruelty to animals is the cosmetic industry. Whenever we buy any cosmetic products, we always make sure that the product is safe on our skin. But, we hardly realise that these products are tested on animals before it reaches us. The chemicals are often injected in animal’s bodies or applied on their skin. Sometimes, these are tested on their eyes too. And if the test fails, it sometimes leads to the animal's death also. These tests cause itching and burning too. But,we the human beings, keep on torturing the animals for our own purposes.

Our progressing medical science also has a big role in harassing the animals and showing our cruelty towards them. For the trials of medicines, animals are selected. They are then injected with the trial medicines without thinking about their pain. They are often kept in freezing temperatures for the experiments. We also ill treat the animals at zoos and circuses. The place where they are kept is not cleaned often. Also, the feeding methods are not too hygienic. These result in various diseases and often to their death.

Many animals and birds, in the name of pets, are being sold everyday. These animals are kept in cages or are kept tied with a chain. Most often, they are beaten up. The street dogs are often beaten up by the shopkeepers if they are found roaming around. Many cows are found roaming around the garbage heaps finding food. Many times many animals are hit by the fast moving traffic. These all are the examples of cruelty towards animals.

But now it's enough! We, the human beings, who are considered as the most intelligent creatures on Earth have to stop playing with these poor creatures' lives. We have to raise our voice and stop being cruel to the animals. We have to bring new strong laws to protect the animals. Every school should teach students how to respect and protect our fellow creatures - animals. Parents themselves should treat the animals with respect and love and should teach their wards the same.

We should always keep one thing in mind that we cannot survive without animals. Everything on Earth has its own purpose. The animals help in balancing our ecosystem. We have to take a call and save our environment, our mother Earth and our animals.

Short Paragraph on Stop Cruelty Towards Animals

Cruelty means a behaviour that harms others physically or mentally. But it's a matter of shame that we only consider human beings when it comes to cruelty. We forget that animals are also living creatures and we should not be cruel to them. Just because these creatures can not express themselves as we do, we forget that what we are doing to them if someone does to us, we will die.

Human industries that contribute to this cruelty are - Textile, Cosmetics, Home Decor and many more. Animal skins and furs are used in textile industries, animal skin, fur, horns and teeths are used to make home decor items. Many animals are killed for their meat also. Animals are ill-treated in laboratories where they are used for testing and experiments. They are often kept in freezing conditions or in boiling conditions.

It is high time now that we stop abusing these poor animals. They are also living beings and are very very important to us as without them the whole ecosystem will disbalance. We should raise awareness and stop these cruelties against animals.

Conclusion:

Cruelty to animals has become a nationwide problem nowadays. The government has already imposed a few laws and a few more are needed. Along with that, social awareness is also required. Students should learn how to treat animals in schools. Parents should also treat their pets well and teach their children. Our planet Earth is a very beautiful place. Here, all the living organisms are dependent on each other and live together. We, humans, are considered the most intelligent species on Earth. But, we sometimes become very insensitive to the creatures who cannot express themselves, especially the animals. We harm them just to fulfil our needs.

We have an essay here on cruelty towards animals which will cover the questions like - write an article on cruelty towards animals, cruelty towards animals paragraph, paragraph on stop cruelty towards animals, article on cruelty towards animals class 9 and so on.

To access these study materials, students will just have to complete this simple process:

Click on the download link provided on Vedantu's website for these study materials

Sign in with Gmail Id

Download the study material and start reaping the utmost benefits of it.

Students can also use Vedantu's mobile application. This mobile application is created by Vedantu to cater to students' needs of convenience and a better user experience. The mobile app is created by top-level app developers. Students who are using this app will not experience any inconvenience. All of these study materials are available on the app for free. Students can also find Vedantu's higher-level study materials like one to one coaching, video lectures, etc. 

This essay on cruelty to animals is created by experts working with Vedantu. These experts have a ton of experience in their particular fields. That's why these experts are hired by Vedantu to provide students with the highest quality of study materials. The experts who wrote this essay on cruelty to animals have a lot of experience and background in this topic. They have taken their time and written this and many other essays for students to use any time and access from anywhere. Just because these essays are created by experts, the chance of these essays scoring full marks in any test or examination is pretty high. 

Students can read this essay right now and can get ready for any tests or exams on it with confidence.

FAQs on Cruelty to Animals Essay

1. List Some Animal Protection Laws.

Here are a few laws and acts to prevent animals:

• Article 51A(g) - It states that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to be compassionate towards other living creatures.
• IPC Section 428 & 429 - Killing animals is a punishable offence.
• Section 11 (1)(i) & Section 11(1)(j), PCA Act, 1960 - Abandoning animals can lead to a prison of upto three months.
• Monkeys have been protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
• Section 22(ii), PCA Act, 1960 - Animals such as Monkeys, Tigers, Bears, Lions, Panthers, Bull can not be trained and can not be used for entertainment purposes.

2. How do we Use Animal Teeth and Horns?

We use animal teeth and horns to make decorative pieces with which we decorate our home and offices. These decorative items are truly expensive for nature and its habitats. The most common example of animal cruelty is hunting. Animals are hunted for their meat, bones, leather or any other precious body parts. This can cause the species to be endangered or even go extinct. Another example of animal cruelty is enslaving them for entertainment or hard work. There are a lot of examples of animals being cruelty trained in circuses, kept as prisoners in zoos, or used as labourers to get the hardest jobs done.

3. What is meant by cruelty to animals?

Animal cruelty is defined as harming animals by either subjecting them to slavery, product-testing, or hunting. Killing endangered species for their meat, bones, or leather also comes under animal cruelty and is a punishable offence. The government of India has passed a lot of laws that prevent cruelty to animals from happening on a large scale. But still, in some neglected places like undeveloped villages, slums, or forests, these activities are followed illegally. And the government and some big governing bodies like PETA are working hard towards eradicating any kind of animal cruelty.

4. How does cruelty affect animals?

Cruelty towards animals can be dangerous for their overall species. There are a lot of examples like dodos, sabre tooth tigers, etc that have gone extinct because of excessive hunting. It is also morally incorrect to torture any living thing to die for the sake of an experiment. That's why animal testing is also banned. Animal testing is another example of animal cruelty and can hurt animals and even cruelly kill them. Animal cruelty should be banned completely.

5. How can we prevent animal cruelty?

There are very clear action steps to take to prevent animal cruelty. We can be responsible pet owners and start showing love and affection towards the animals at our home. We can adopt or at least hand over the abandoned baby animals we find on the streets to animal care centres. We can prohibit the use of animal-tested cosmetics or any products. We can even file a complaint against anyone who is abusing stray animals or harming them.

How to Heal From Pet Loss and Different Forms of Grief

Anne marie farage-smith's new book is an extremely useful guide..

Updated June 4, 2024 | Reviewed by Margaret Foley

• Understanding Grief
• Find a therapist to heal from grief
• Different forms of anguish include acute, anticipatory, ambiguous, disenfranchised, and complicated grief.
• There isn't a single "right" way to grieve the loss of one's nonhuman companion.
• Companion animals cannot be replaced like a broken part in an appliance.
• Those grieving shouldn't be told, "Oh, you should be over this by now” or “You can always get another pet.”

“Written with sensitivity and understanding, Healing Wisdom for Pet Loss offers a unique look at our grief reactions related to our pets .…I particularly liked this volume's focus on the diverse reactions that people experience, and how working through grief is an individual process that might be different from the reactions of others. I am pleased to recommend this book for all who live with companion animals as well as those who work alongside them. It is a thoughtful and very useful addition to the literature.” — Risë VanFleet , Ph.D.

When someone decides to bring a companion animal into their home and heart, an individual with whom they form a special bond, at some time they will likely have to deal with the loss of their close friend. When a companion animal dies, it is a heartbreaking adjustment when we are faced with the fact that our friend is no longer physically present in our lives. People experience these sorts of losses and unique pain in many different ways—there isn't a single "right" way to grieve the loss of one's nonhuman companion—and I found Anne Marie Farage-Smith's highly acclaimed new book, Healing Wisdom for Pet Loss: An Animal Lover’s Guide to Grief, to be an easy-to-read and very valuable addition to relevant literature on this topic. Here's what she had to say about her new book.

Marc Bekoff: Why did you write Healing Wisdom for Pet Loss?

Anne Marie Farage-Smith: I wrote this book because I have a deep passion for this topic and want to help those who are grieving the loss of a pet by providing this valuable information to them. I also want to ensure that this loss is validated and not disenfranchised.

MB: How does your book relate to your background and general areas of interest?

AMFS: I am a licensed mental health counselor and a pet loss grief counseling professional. Over the years I have counseled many individuals and groups in all areas of grief and loss. More recently, I have specialized in pet grief and loss. A lover of animals, I have always had a strong connection to them and have advocated for them. I have served as a volunteer for a local pet rescue group and for pet-assisted therapy through our local Humane Society. And of course, I have had a special relationship with the pets in my family.

MB: Whom do you hope to reach in your interesting and important book?

AMFS: I hope to reach bereaved pet parents, and to be with them and let them know they are not alone in this grief. Another goal is to reach veterinarians, their staff, and others in animal care; I hope to show them that it can be very helpful to them and the pet parents who bring their animals to their practices.

MB: What are some of the major topics you consider?

AMFS: My book discusses the human-animal bond, why it is important, and how it affects what we experience when we lose our pets. I provide pragmatic tools and information that are helpful to people processing their grief. This includes a discussion of the types of grief and how to take care of oneself through it. In my book, readers are introduced to the many types of grief they may experience, such as the acute grief, anticipatory grief, ambiguous grief, disenfranchised grief, and complicated grief. This introduction helps them to be more effective in dealing with the specifics of their own grief. I also cover ways to memorialize their pets

MB: How does your book differ from others that are concerned with some of the same general topics?

AMFS: My book is a comprehensive guidebook to help the grieving pet parent work through and be supported in their grief. While it can be read cover-to-cover, it does not need to be. A section called “How to Use This Book” instructs the reader on how to find the specific information to meet their specific current needs. One of my purposes is to provide a path to the specific information needed now or in the future. My book also contains a comprehensive bibliography to facilitate further reading.

MB: Are you hopeful that as people learn more about how to deal with the loss of a companion animal it will help them overcome the deep grief they feel?

AMFS: Yes, absolutely. I strongly believe that that as people feel validated and understood in this grief it will help soften the deep grief they may feel when their pet dies. Pet loss is a very heartbreaking loss as such, but it is doubly hard when it is not recognized by others in our society. Also, sometimes people say things that are meant to be helpful but turn out to be hurtful, such as “Oh, you should be over this grief by now,” “You can always get another pet,” etc. The pet they lost cannot be replaced like a broken part in an appliance. They were a special, unique part of their family. Grief-stricken pet parents and families can feel that they need to hide the loss. Our society does not deal well with grief and many suffering this loss are not given time off work to help them through this unique grief.

In conversation with Anne Marie Farage Smith , a lifelong animal lover, an advocate for all animals, and Pet Loss Grief Counseling Trained Professional. As a licensed mental health counselor and educator in private practice, she has offered clinical guidance to many individuals and groups experiencing grief and loss and is the founder of the Rochester Center for Pet Grief and Loss.

For more literature on how to negotiate the grief that is experienced when losing a companion animal click here .

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D. , is professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience