do we have the right to restrict other creatures freedom write an article
Answers
Hope it Helps!!!!! Mark me as Brainliest!!!!
Explanation:
Animals need more freedom with a capital "F": Taller and larger cages and other welfare modifications don't do enough
"When all is said and done, the only adequate moral response to vivisection is empty cages, not larger cages." (Tom Regan)
I love this quotation from the late Tom Regan, one of the most influential people who's ever worked on behalf of non-human animals (animals). His words not only apply to captive animals, but also to wild animals who are held captive to human whims and the numerous ways in which human interests trump those of an huge number of nonhuman animals around the world. Below is an interview with Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, about Jessica Pierce and my new book called The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age in which there is a focus on the need for freedom.1,2
In their 2017 book, The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age, ethologist Marc Bekoff and bioethicist Jessica Pierce offer a provocative critique of animal welfare values as they play out in the real world of animals’ treatment. Wayne Pacelle put a handful of questions to the two authors to learn more about their views.
In The Animals’ Agenda, you and Jessica cast animal welfare as a relatively complacent science and worldview. Your contention is that the animal welfare perspective, in science and thought, is increasingly stressed under the weight of an ideology of freedom. Can you provide a wider context for this criticism as it appears in the book?
Our book took root out of a shared sense of frustration with science—and with a particular kind of science. We had both assumed, earlier in our careers, that the scientific study of the emotional and cognitive lives of animals would lead to major changes in how humans treat other animals—how could it not? Once people see that animals are intelligent and feeling creatures, just like us, they won’t be able, in good conscience, to inflict suffering and deprivations.
It seemed, as we looked around, that the accumulating research into the inner lives of animals had done nothing to help their situation—more animals are being raised and slaughtered for food, more are being held captive in entertainment venues, invasive laboratory research is expanding, and so forth. We had many discussions where we puzzled over this seeming paradox: the more we know, the worse things are getting for animals.
The Animals’ Agenda was our attempt to figure out why science is failing animals. The answer, in brief, is that the study of animal emotion and cognition has been channeled into animal welfare science. And “welfare science” is not science in the service of animals, but rather science in the service of industry. Indeed, as we delved into our research for the book, it became pretty clear that the word “welfare” is a dirty little lie: Whenever you see the word “welfare” in the literature, you can be pretty sure something unpleasant is being done to animals. (The word “humane” is equally troublesome.)
Good animal welfare just isn’t good enough for the billions of non-human animals who are used in a wide variety of human-controlled venues, ranging from so-called factory farms, to laboratories, zoos and circuses, to pets, to wild animals and conservation efforts both in captivity and in more natural settings. Animal welfare is not much concerned with the plight of individual animals, and in numerous instances the welfarist approach patronizes animals. Business as usual for welfarists basically boils down to trumping the interests of animals in favor of humans, while trying to give animals a better life as they’re being ruthlessly exploited and abused and often killed in the venues mentioned above.