Exclusion Enders 'The End Justifies The Means'

The fundamental question that defined the content of the article was "What gives us the right to exploit other organisms as we see fit?" (Suzuki, 2008, p.681). Humanity had a long history of using animals in testing due to biological similarities (Suzuki, 2008, p. 680). He put a mirror to people by questioning the ways animals were treated in those scenarios, and if the methods and product were worth the suffering of animals. To do this he looked at examples of scientific studies to alleviate human illness, as well as use of animals for entertainment. By contrasting the harsh realities animals face with the rationalization of their captors, the article underlined not only humanity's unlimited capacity for cruelty but also the factors that allow it to keep on doing the same thing no matter what the truth of the matter is. The article was written for those who those who do not know about the scientific exploitation of animals as well as those who have not in the past seen the idea of captivity and scientific treatment of

I am arguing in favor to abolish the exclusionary rule, as opposed to the alternative, which is to continue to believe that the exclusionary rule is part of people’s Constitutional right to protect against illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial that allows criminals to go free. For those who are not familiar with the exclusionary rule, the exclusionary is a very debatable topic in the United States and Supreme Courts. The supposed purpose of the exclusionary rule is under the constitutional law that evidence illegally obtained will be inadmissible in criminal trials. Most people argue that the abolishment of the exclusionary rule allows citizens to be deprived of life, liberty, or property and it would not uphold people’s Constitutional

When I first heard about the book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks", I thought it was just a reading assignment when I was in high school that I had to complete for a grade. As I began reading I became particularly interested in Henrietta Lacks and the HeLa cells. In "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks", Rebecca Skloot talks about Henrietta Lacks and how her cells were taken without her permission, and how her family suffered afterwards. Skloot shows how medicine and science were seen back in the 1950's compared to now.

(Martin Wasserman) Scientist do not feel that they are morally wrong because they make breakthroughs with the testing. On the opposite side you have people who believe that animals have feel pain. They feel it is morally wrong to subject these creatures to this type of torture. (Opponents)

“This is how humans are: we question all our beliefs, except the ones we really believe, and those we never think to question.” This quote by Orson Scott Card in the Ender’s Game sequel, Speaker for the Dead, points out that it is in human nature to question beliefs and ideas. Reading Ender’s Game for the first time, I saw a boy in the future who was struggling through battle, and later command school. However, when I looked a little closer, I noticed much deeper ideas implanted in the story by Orson Scott Card, no doubt on purpose, to make his readers think; to make them question. There are multiple themes weaved throughout Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, among them; manipulation, xenophobia, and compassion, all of which are interrelated.

Card in the novel demonstrates that a component that a person can control another is one’s humanity. Ender develops attack strategies to defeat the buggers by studying them. The last time that Ender visits the Earth, he reunites with his sister, Valentine. The two of them start to talk about what has happened throughout the years and Ender tells her that he has study the buggers for a while because Ender has an interest in them and as well, that someday he might fight them. Ender mentions to Valentine, “I used to study them… It’s the buggers themselves. I don’t know anything about them and yet someday I’m supposed to fight them” (237). Studying the enemy shows the humanity of Ender because he does not want to attack the buggers without knowing

Ender’s game was so laughably bad as a movie, that i’m upset that you made us watch it. It all starts with Ender, a third. Who is put through numerous difficult trials of isolation, and violence. Eventually being put on the ultimate task of destroying an entire species. While watching Ender’s Game I couldn’t help but laugh at how bad, and different it was compared to the book.

If an expirement on a chimpanzee that does not have any mental damge on them can save a human life I can understand it. A character that stood out to me was a guy name Bob Ingersoll who argreed keeping Nim in a cage was torutre. A scence with Bob and Nim I found amusing was when Nim got high off of a blunt from Bob. Nim enjoyed it and actual requested it through hand signals. In the end, Herbet Terrace believe that their was little sucess in communication and it was ultimately a failure when Nim was biting and assaulting humans. I still believe that their is no justifcation for experimenting on animals by locking them up, drugging them, and treating them like threats to society. Yes, their is alot of benefits of gaining knowledge through experiments, however, I do not believ that this is how God wanted us to treat

In Ender's case the means which is the destruction of his childhood and identity is justified by the end which is the fact that he save humankind and life as we know it. In the case of Animal Research the

Another unethical side of animal research is that once a study is complete and depending on the species and type of research that the animal was used for, the animal may be euthanized. Numerous animals are used in research, experimented on and then killed. Some of the animals are permanently injured and will continue to live the remainder of their life in captivity. Many of

Literature is often a vehicle for social commentary. Two works of literature that express criticism of practices in the society in which they were written are Niccolo Machiavelli’s Mandragola and the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. In his satirical comedy, Machiavelli indirectly criticizes the hypocritical practices of the Catholic Church; however, Jesus in the Gospel According to Saint Matthew instead directly condemns all evil deeds, few of which are criticized in Mandragola. The main difference between the two criticisms is that Machiavelli believes if positive ends are the product of corrupt

In addition to the fact that animal experimentation is ineffective, unreliable, and costly, testing on animals also violates animal rights. Do we think that just because we are superior to animals that we have the right to subject these innocent creatures to cruel and painful experiments? The superiority humans feel over animals may be the reason why humans feel less troubled by inflicting pain on animals. Or perhaps humans justify this cruel act by saying that animals would not be used in experiments if their use was not absolutely necessary. The pain and misery these animals are put through is absolutely unjustified, especially since the experiments they are subject to are proven to be unnecessary and even pointless. As Ingrid Newkirk states, animals in the laboratories are "under constant stress from fear, the loss of control over their lives, and the denial of all

Many people have heard of the question, “does the end justify the means?”, but what does it mean? This question can be answered on both sides as yes it does justify and no it does not justify the means. It all depends on the situation in hand. Were the steps to achieve the end good or bad? If the steps to the end were good then it justifies but if it was bad then it does not justify. So the answer to the question would be depending on the means to get there and the end results.

In our world, protests occur each day on the issues of animal cruelty and human rights, but when the issues are put together which will reign over the other? The author Peter Singer of “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research” presents his argument for determining when animal experiments are justified. The author starts his paper with a counter argument, questioning if one would be willing to let thousands of people die if those people could be saved by experimentation on a single animal. The answer is a unanimous no; in our culture we value human life over everything else. The author follows by asking the reader if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on humans who are mentally retarded or orphaned babies, if that

Animal experimentation by scientists can be cruel and unjust, but at the same time it can provide long term benefits for humanity. Animals used in research and experiments have been going on for 2,000 years and keep is going strong. It is a widely debated about topic all over the world. Some say it is inhuman while others say it’s for the good of human kind. There are many different reasons why people perform experiments and why others total disagree with it.