We will not make them suffer long painful deaths. Ethical treatment of animals can be solved using the deontology theory. “Deontology focuses on what we are obligated to do as rational moral agents. It is particularly important to see that the deontologist does not say that actions do not have consequences; rather, the deontologist insists that actions should not be evaluated on the basis of the action's consequences (Mossler, 2010).“ One example of the deontology theory in action is your livestock is being attacked by a wild animal. In efforts to protect your livestock you shoot and kill the wild animal.
It is true that we do things to animals that we are not for certain how are they are affected by it. He hints about his thesis in the second paragraph but I was not certain if that is where the thesis would be stated. His thesis is stated in the third paragraph “It is a demand for a complete change in our attitudes to nonhumans” and “It is a demand that we cease to regard the exploitation of other species as natural and inevitable, and that, instead, we see it as a continuing moral outrage”. Singer wants us to change the way we treat animals and will try to convince us to do so. He does make a convincing case but he compares animal liberation with three other liberation movements.
When a person is unsure on whether or not that they will live to see their next birthday, the last thing that they are worried about is if the treatments that they are taking, that is fighting a war inside their body, was tested on the animals in a humane way. Animal testing is a benefit to society. It has saved countless lives with the how much it has contributed to medical research and has ensured the general public’s safety with how it has played a major role in the rules and regulations of food, drugs and cosmetics. The abolishment of animal testing would mean that researchers would not be able to find drugs and treatments for medical purposes. Animal research has played a pivotal role in virtually every major medical advancement for both human and animal health in the last century.
Vivi-section violates animal freedom. And since animals cannot volunteer themselves, they are chosen for scientific purposes with no voice in the matter whatsoever. If us humans go swimming we have to sign waivers but these poor animals are being signed up for torture, which will lead to their inevitable death with no say in the matter. Vivi-section is used for scientific purposes, for finding cures that benefit the human population, sure a few animals will be saved using these cures but in the end it’s the human population that benefits more from the deaths of these helpless animals.
The cost of obtaining embryonic stem cells is unethical since it involves the inevitable destruction of human lives. Human embryos deserve respect as a form of human life and there is no justifiable reason to venture on the route of murder. "The human embryo is the weakest and least advantaged of our fellow human beings. No community is really strong if it will not carry its weakest members (Bourzac)." Banning embryonic stem cell research would give life a chance to happen since frozen embryos in labs could be implanted into a woman's uterus and become a child at any time.
It is cruel and wrong of the human population to enslave animals for the sheer purpose of entertainment. Those who support the activity of capturing cetaceans for commercial use claim that no harm is inflicted upon the animals while they are in human containment. They also claim that captivity is essential for education and research purposes, let alone a means of entertainment. In some cases, cetaceans are taken straight from the ocean if they are wounded or in danger. This is because they require rehabilitation and human care to help increase their chance of survival.
Also, people feel that t is unnecessary to clone mammals. The final reason is political problems. The first reason that I mentioned above was that some people don’t agree with cloning because it is killing babies. This is true because it can kill potential babies, but not newborns. Also, it is not killing the potential baby, it is just reducing the possibility of having a baby.
Some companies have a strong belief that animal testing is essential in order to make sure that consumers are protected during the use of their products. For the fact that we allow this to happen in our world is pathetic, and it all comes down to pure selfishness’, an ugly trait in which human’s possess. How can it be rational to take the life out of something because it can’t show or tell someone if they’re in agony? Over the years there have been numerous amounts of companies that have stood strong on not participating in animal cruelty; realistically it should be the only way. Humans are at fault here; before it’s too late we must realize that each living creature has a choice and should never be taken away by pure
Animal Cloning and Experimentation | March 22 2011 | logan ward | logan ward PHI 110 | A question that has plagued scientific and philosophical minds for many years is whether the experimentation and cloning of animals is ethical. This same question has caused more questions to arise again and again; such as, should we exploit animals for our own benefit? Do our rights override that of animals, and if they do, should we be allowed to decide the fate of these animals? Furthermore, what are we to do with these animals when we have cloned them or when we have finished our experimentations on their cells? Are these clones really animals, or are they just scientific facsimiles?
This quote can not justify animal testing, because these products are tested on animals that sometimes will not show the same side affects as humans. This alone is a reason why we should end animal experimentation because it is pointless in the first