Are animals as important as human beings? Peter Singer answers this question in his article “Animal Liberation.” Singer supports the idea that animals are as important as human beings. People should stop seeing animals as a means of satisfying human wants and see the animal as equals. Exploitation of animal will stop when humans will accept that it is unnecessary. It is hard to understand why an animal should be used to conduct research which is aimed at finding medicine for the human disease (Singer) .
Festivals does not mean that you must take an animal's life. Festivals are a time when you can spend and cherish the time with your loved ones. Finally I would like to conclude this essay by saying that Ritual Slaughter should be banned immediately as it affects the rights of an animal and doesn’t give them any chance to live. These animals are sacred and precious. The more we
Paul McCartney once famously stated, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian”. In recent years, the practice and concept of vegetarianism has increasingly gained public attention as one of the most contentious topics in terms of conflicting views and moral justifications. In principle, vegetarianism as a practice abstains from the consumption of meat due to a range of factors such as ethics, religion, and health. On one hand, people may become vegetarians in adherence to religious teachings, or in search of a cleaner plant-based lifestyle, or in active support for the sanctity of all animal life, without exceptions. On the other hand, those who disagree with vegetarianism might argue that religion and health needs validate meat consumption.
On the other hand, there isn’t a kind of animal besides human eat animals by breeding them in a cage. To summarize, animals eat each other in nature doesn’t mean there is nothing wrong for humans eating animals in a way that is violated the natural law. For the same reason, the argument ‘It is natural for lions or tigers to eat animals, so it is natural for humans to eat animals too’ commit similar fallacies as the ways of lions or tigers eating animals are completely natural. They do not breed certain kinds of animals for their food. However, humans breed a certain kind of animals just for food and these animals are always enclosed in a small place.
Some people believe that humans evolved to meat, and people should continue to eat meat because our ancestors did. Einstein once said, “So I am living without fats, without meat, without fish, but am feeling quite well this way. It always seems to me that man was not born to be a carnivore.” Einstein is a well known and respected scientist, and his opinions should not be taken lightly. If Einstein did not think meat is necessary in a human diet and people can meet their dietary needs on a vegetarian diet, then people must consider the idea that although humans can eat meat, it is not a necessity. Furthermore, human ancestors also ate many plant based foods.
We need to stop animal testing even testing drugs for dog diseases. Animal testing is a sad careless thing that people think they can get away with. Animals deserve better. This does matter, I don’t want animals to die. People need to acknowledge their actions.
Many humanist have moral concerns when it comes to eating meat since they are based on the way we treat animals, environment and world poverty. For this reason, some humanists become vegetarians, while some choose to eat less meat or to eat only meat from free range animals. A humanist view of morality is different from other religious outlooks in life where they often look to holy texts to discover the goal that a god has set. Humanists do not look to any god for rules but think carefully themselves about what might be the best way to live. This approach focuses on being empathetic and on thinking about the effects of choices on the happiness or suffering of the people or animals concerned.
On the other hand there are some people who believe animals should not have basic human rights. Perhaps they don 't deserve it because animals don 't know right from wrong when their natural instinct is to survive. You can 't punish a animal for killing another animal the way you can punish a human for murder. Humans understand right from wrong. Giving animals basic human rights is also not a good idea because giving animals human rights would mean not being able to test on animals.
Testing on animals will make them blind, sick, and many more dangerous actions. Animals should not die or be harmed for unnecessary products. They will make
However, that line of thinking quickly clashes with the fact that with the help of exactly such testing, with the sacrifice of those animal lives, human lives are saved in return. Who are we to object to the expedition of finding a cure for someone’s son’s or daughter’s illness on the basis that it would be cruel toward some animals, which fact is not up for debate, it is indeed downright monstrous. And if one person had the conviction to deny themselves the cure, what gives them the right to forbid others from using it. In the end the simplest question presents itself, whether testing experimental drugs and treatments on humans is more sane and logical rather than animal testing, and then there is a line which might as well cease progress. A line which demands not to be crossed, the line that demands human lives be handled with caution and care, the line which will cause baby steps instead of strives
As humans, we 're required to eat at least one of them. However, ethics do play a role, in that morals is one of the elements that separates us from other animals. I believe that if you kill an animal or plant for food, you should put a majority of it to use in some way. I also believe animals and plants that are grown as a source of food should have as little interaction with humans as possible. We should not eat animals and plants if we are endangering their existence by eating them.
There has always been a battle between meat eaters and vegetarians. There is so much controversy regarding what the human race should or should not be putting in their bodies. Vegetarians often try to convert the meat eaters with their bias information, and vice versa. The truth is, no one should be worried about what the other person is eating. What another person decides to put in their body will in not affect some else’s body.
This helps implement the idea there is an anthropocentric view for not torturing animals for it can lead to harm with humans. Premise 4 shows that any suffering is characterized as unnecessary. Premise 5 believes all animal for foods use unnecessary suffering, which is a false premise for not all use suffering on animals to make food. An example would be a slaughter house for cows that use euthanasia to kill them to avoid suffering. The conclusion then states human consumption of any products is justified.
Many people may think the food they eat are killed humanely. For some animals this is the case, but not all meat distributers follow the rules of the Department of Agriculture. More importantly, birds do not apply to the law that states animals must not be able to feel pain when being killed. They can be paralyzed and drowned while still conscious(Cruel Slaughterhouse
People say that if u test on the animals nobody would care if they died. The also say that it won’t harm the animals but it really does. Some people also say that animal testing is bad because of the danger you are putting the animals in. The animals are going extinct because of the testing. In conclusion, animal testing should not be allowed because it is torture.