You are on page 1of 3

The demoralization and dehumanization of the animals in the film "Earthlings" demonstrate a revealing account about animal husbandry,

their dilemmas, sustainability and ethical boundaries. Since the beginning of mankind, humans have relied on their predatory instincts take over in the lower creatures to make a living, but what happens when we live in an age when no longer needed such instincts, when the outbreak of population bubble has grown far beyond the ability of the animals safely and effectively harvest to our own personal needs. Our own indoctrination of moral codes and ethical dilemmas are just that, indoctrinated. To say that morality exists or not is misunderstood. Being privileged life at the top of the food chain up to us as a civilization to set limits and principles of what is right and what is wrong, what you deserve and what is false. Ultimately, it comes down to our innate goodness or badness native to the precept of the sentence of life, the value of ethics and morality subsistence. Orwell said it best: "Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. Gives no milk, does not lay eggs, is too weak to pull the plow, he can not run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all animals. "This is the crux of human prosperity, unity, ambition, ingenuity. At the same time, is the mother of hatred, cruelty, oppression and evil. Our ability as a species to reason, to lie, to empathize, deep insights of what we consider good, and what we consider bad. Consumption without production, harvesting all we can, land reaping its rewards, it does leveraging our innate abilities makes us greedy and greedy, or wise and witty. A chimpanzee mother held her dead children per week, killed in the duel, which exemplifies the true nature of empathy and compassion. By contrast, these same animals have been reported to kill his acquaintances in the most brutal and nasty, pounding their skulls in a slurry with a stone for no other reason than pure antagonistic anger. Like the chimpanzee, man's conscious thought is abstract; think Peter Singer, thinks Albers. Nature is unpredictable in its ways, its craftsmanship folding shovel grass to man's ethical psyche. No two elements are equal, and humanity is not exempt from this law. To talk of evil, of good, of right and wrong is to talk about the snowflakes falling on a clear winter day. The burden falls on us as a collectivization, a conglomerate, to judge what is beautiful, what is valued and what is disposable. Every man is sincere as himself; evolutionary explanation dictates this, our survival depends on it. But what about the rest of entities that share the land, those that fly, those that swim, those who run, those who crawl. The evil is reflected in those who are deeply malevolent in nature, lacking a moral compass, in the deepest nature. However, we can say that it is wrong to kill a rabbit, a goat, a man, if honest man is acting according to their evolution, biology, nature. In the film "Earthlings" grossly excessive killing and abuse of animals is the key point, with complete indifference and apathy shown to the animals. Arguably, this is the embodiment of evil, to take in excess, not only without giving back, but to take no thanks, no recognition, negligence in the sacrifice of wealth. Consume more than you need, with a blatant disregard for the exuberance is in fact selfishness which is greed, greed greedy, but the question remains, is bad, or is this very nature of man. When we choose to draw the line between what is right and what is wrong is defined by an arbitrary set of rules that we set for ourselves. To lead a flock of sheep to their slaughter, either for consumption of their meat, wool fabric, or any resource, it remains heavy with the question of

what is being done. The simplicity of the question, whether or not it is "good or bad" is now overshadowed by the realization that a nation has hungry mouths to feed, or crumbling economy has jobs to fill. The Venn diagram becomes a web, as more and more tangents are returned to the question of why we are turning cows into steaks. While we're stumbling over questions, we can ask if the suffering and cruelty are mandatory in our collection of pork, cow's milk or hen's eggs. Is it necessary to put a chicken in a cage, a pig in a pen, a horse in a stable, or if it simply becomes another byproduct of voracious greed, neglect, despise life. After all, empathy comes from understanding and appreciation of adversity, an attribute that we know too well. The recognition of this adversity, tribulation and anguish of ourselves or of any living being is palpable. Date of pigs treated in their own feces, chickens in cages and can not turn my head, it sounds an alarm ethical dilemma within most of us. By not improve our lives at the expense of others intemperate become superfluous to the cause? For many, the suffering and hardship are not as easily seen as a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day, the ethical boundaries become hazy and blurred in this sense, as I can tolerate, you can consider abhorrent. Needless to say, no one in their right mind wants to be in a situation of danger or discomfort, and when it comes tortured creatures of "Earthlings", few will argue that if these practices are essential for the growth and prosperity of human life, which is minimized so that the grief and torment and do not bow as a matter of ethical dilemma. Personal opinions contrast with the movement of what is and what is not acceptable when it comes to the need to support the current way of life, since there are no values in nature, or life, to apply them. The concept of morality is ambiguous to those who see the world in black and white, which have been or have not been indoctrinated to fully understand respect for the differentiation of the actions, decisions and intentions. Even the noblest of men may be guilty of violating the moral conduct of a person, in respect of their own. He who is being charged by a lion can shoot the creature and claim it was in self-defense, while another may be neglected by interfering with the natural way. Similarly, a farmer can feel it fair to grab a chicken by its neck, amid the strident, separated from the head and body serve as a meal for their children, while another bow his head in scruples, and condemn man to hell in such atrocity. As the only species on the planet, with a spoken language, and mental capacity sufficient to convey our deepest thoughts and most elaborate can often find that it is much more basic to identify with those who share our skills, giving up the rights and privileges of the value as below step, second-class, and the affiliate. Unfortunately, we believe that all life is populated with these conditions exclusively in our position and status of a dominant species. For some, morality plays little or no role in our consideration of the weak and the vulnerable. However, others argue that the persistence in the top of the food chain is a privilege to be grateful, not a right to be abused. Being good is not reason enough, but to be good for something is becoming the core of what people say when considering the morality of their actions, thoughts, and life. In conclusion, our differential is different, as we are limited and restricted to a strict set of arbitrary rules that we supervise, to which we have the principles of our conduct and integrity in our assessment of life. Our common understanding, consent to what life should be, is that we all hope for prosperity, joy and comfort. To associate what is generally thought that human

characteristics to a rooster, a dove, or a fish the way we do a small child or a woman in mourning, it is inconceivable to many, so that the question of what is or is not moral and ethical is beyond the limits of viability. Each agency is set free thought its own set of precedents to better themselves in their own effects of the action, if these precedents fall in line with another decree the integrity of driving games. All you can hope for in life is to fall into a conventional set of procedures, in which most of us are satisfied accomplished, replacing immoral and unethical principles with complacency and content.