1. Choose a moral issue from within one of the topics that has been addressed in our Ethics Labs other than the first one (animal treatment, death penalty, euthanasia, business ethics). Choosen topic: Animal Rights
2. Present two positions on either side of the issue chosen. The student will present these two positions clearly and accurately, making use of any specific argument that was associated with the positions.
3. Evaluate the two positions critically. In doing this, determine whether the moral problem has been handled well or not by both sets of reasons presented.
4. Offer a final assessment of the issue chosen in the paper based on the evaluation they perform. This will involve either justifying an agreement with one of the two positions discussed, or offering another option.
5. The paper should be at least 900 words in length
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Animal Rights: Evaluating Positions and Providing a Final Assessment
Introduction
The issue of animal rights is a complex and controversial topic that raises important ethical considerations. It involves questions about the moral status and treatment of animals, as well as the extent of our obligations towards them. In this paper, we will present two positions on the issue of animal rights, evaluate them critically, and offer a final assessment based on the evaluation performed.
Position 1: Animal Rights Advocacy
One position on animal rights is that animals have inherent value and deserve certain rights and protections. Animal rights advocates argue that animals should not be treated as mere resources for human use, but rather as beings with their own interests and entitlements. They argue for the recognition of animals as moral subjects and call for the abolition of practices that cause them harm, such as factory farming, animal testing, and entertainment industries that exploit animals.
Animal rights advocates often appeal to the principle of equal consideration of interests, arguing that all sentient beings, regardless of their species, should be given equal moral consideration. They emphasize the capacity of animals to suffer and experience pleasure, and argue that these capacities give them a claim to basic rights, such as the right to life, freedom from unnecessary suffering, and the right to pursue their own interests.
Position 2: Human-Centric Ethical Framework
An opposing position on animal rights is based on a human-centric ethical framework. This position holds that humans have a unique moral status due to their rationality, autonomy, or other characteristics, which distinguishes them from other animals. According to this view, while animals may deserve some level of moral consideration, they do not possess the same rights as humans.
Supporters of this position argue that human interests should take precedence over animal interests, as humans have the capacity for moral agency and are capable of making decisions based on ethical principles. They contend that it is justifiable to use animals for human purposes, such as food, clothing, and scientific research, as long as their welfare is taken into account and unnecessary suffering is minimized.
Evaluation of Positions
Both positions presented above provide important perspectives on the issue of animal rights, but they also have their limitations and weaknesses.
The animal rights advocacy position offers a compelling argument for recognizing the moral status of animals and granting them rights. It highlights the capacity of animals to suffer and their entitlement to basic protections. However, critics argue that extending rights to animals may have unintended consequences, such as undermining human interests and hindering scientific progress. They also question the feasibility of implementing animal rights in practice and argue that some uses of animals, such as medical research, may be ethically justifiable under certain circumstances.
On the other hand, the human-centric ethical framework acknowledges the unique moral status of humans and their capacity for rational decision-making. It emphasizes the importance of human interests and argues for a balanced approach that considers animal welfare while still allowing for their use. However, this position has been criticized for its potential to justify exploitation and cruelty towards animals. Critics argue that it fails to adequately account for the inherent value of animals and the ethical implications of using them as mere resources.
Final Assessment: A Middle Ground Approach
After critically evaluating both positions, it becomes clear that a strict adherence to either extreme may not fully address the moral complexities associated with animal rights. A more nuanced approach is needed, one that recognizes the inherent value of animals while also considering human interests and practical considerations.
This middle ground approach involves promoting animal welfare through measures such as improved animal husbandry practices, reduction of unnecessary animal testing, and stricter regulations on industries that exploit animals for entertainment purposes. It also encourages the development and promotion of alternative methods and technologies that can replace the use of animals in various fields.
Additionally, education and awareness about animal rights should be prioritized to foster a culture of compassion and respect towards animals. This would involve teaching empathy and responsible stewardship from an early age, promoting ethical consumption choices, and supporting organizations that work towards improving animal welfare.
In conclusion, the issue of animal rights is one that requires careful consideration of both animal interests and human realities. While animal rights advocacy brings attention to the moral status of animals, a strictly human-centric perspective fails to fully recognize their inherent value. A middle ground approach that emphasizes animal welfare, promotes alternatives, and educates society about ethical treatment of animals provides a more balanced and justifiable stance. By adopting this approach, we can strive to create a world where both human and animal interests are respected and protected.
