Activists are constantly fighting for the ultimate goal of ending all animal use. They are fighting for animals to have the same rights as a human being. The end result would be no animals being consumed as food. Clothing could no longer be made from animals. Medical research or product testing could no longer be performed on animals.
The morality of humane treatment or imposing the parameters of human rights as a moral imperative where animals are concerned should be based upon the idea that as an enlightened human being, animals should be treated with dignity. That animals do not deserve humane treatment because they cannot reciprocate is not a rational idea. Neither is the argument that because they cannot be taught relevant. It is not about the creature who is being treated in a certain way as much as the morality involved in using power over other creatures to deny their
Darryl Phillips Mr. Leggett English 4 28 April 17 Behind the Scenes In Animal Testing Animal experimentation is a serious issue that many people oppose, whereas others try to justify the inhumanity behind it. Because of the controversy surrounding this topic, it has caused much frustration in companies and labs that test their products on animals. There are currently many organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatments of Animals) and IAAPEA (International Association Against Painful Experiments On Animals) that oppose animal testing and try to resolve this issue by providing people with knowledgeable information about what is really happening to these animals. Over one-hundred million animals die in labs worldwide every
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.
Animals have the right to live without being at any point, confined, exploited, tormented, or eaten. It’s wrong of people to use animals to experiment. The thought of them making fun out of them makes me sick because there is no need for it. A couple of the things I wanted o mention that I agreed on was
Admittedly, perhaps during the time of Descartes, the thought of animals having emotions was preposterous but given today’s notion of treating animals as if they were human, the idea of animal emotions does raise an argument against Descartes. Moreover, animals in modern psychological studies are under strict guidance as to their care and use in experimental studies. If animals were simply unreasoning machines, modern psychology would not have developed the American Psychological Association’s
Food Inc. Animals are living beings and should be treated with decency in our society. I think that people often see animals as inferior creatures because they are not like us. However they are living creatures that depend on the same sources and basic needs to survive on this planet. For this reason alone, I believe that humans should treat animals with more decency.
There are multiple reasons stated in Rachel's article on why it is wrong to eat meat. The main point in her article is that to eat meat is to support a cruel system of meat production. Rachels argues against Kant's belief that animals do not have a moral standing and are merely a means to an end, which is man. Rachels believes that
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
However, the activist believes survival is not enough. On PETA’s website, they make a firm stance by stating that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way” (1). Subsequently, what are animals to humans then? What function do they serve to humans other than the right to live without suffering? In this analysis the activist approach to animal rights is too extreme.