The animal is used in research which is meant to benefit human beings. But although it is possible to stop using animals for in research, there is a limited chance of getting animals out of human research activities. Animals are used in research where laws are stating it is unethical to use human subjects. Many people may wonder why laws prohibit the use of human subjects but allow animal subjects. Although different people may argue differently the main reason is what Singer is fighting for which is equality of human lives and animal lives.
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.
For him as for other liberal thinkers, the moral status is excluded for these recipients of justice. They argue that the pluralism in a society would have different attitudes towards the treatment of animals so the state should resist interfering with different conceptions of the good . He does not reject the humanitarian side; the importance of human duties towards animals, but it is different to justice. Justice is a matter for legal state enforcement; in this sense we do need to regard animal rights in this language of justice and not only in terms of morality because it has no legal standing and we do need animal rights to have legal significance to protect them from cruelty ; in this sense we have to regard animals with morality and justice
Hunting has a deeper meaning to some people and to take that away from them is in some ways inhumane. In addition, the detrimental wildlife issues that would emerge if hunting were no longer an option to keep animal populations under control would increase significantly. The idea of keeping hunting alive is crucial to keep our wildlife safe. Hunting may not apply to all people in the world, but it has to be done. In today’s world there is no other possible way to manage our wildlife in such an effective manner as we do it now.
The desire to venture and roam freely is a defining right of what it means to be a living being. Especially in a day and age where freedom is a prime factor of society. To really compare humanities, knowledge, philosophies and accomplishments, with the rights that animals have would be quite irrational. As irrational as these beliefs are, humanity the more superior species must acknowledged their duties to keep these living organisms safe as they all provide a purpose for the outside world in an ethical point of view. Holding these animals captive Zoos deprive them of their natural rights that in turn violates humanities very own beliefs and morals.
Since the beginning of human existence, our world had different kinds of moral sources which were religion, family, friends. Different sources of morality provided different meanings of morality. Furthermore, morality differs from the one person to another in different circumstances. However, an idea of morality is to provide an instrument which will help the society to develop and keep the difference between human beings and animals. Following that, it would be a mistake to presume that religion and God to be the origin of moral ideas, because humans themselves invented an image of God and the rules that people should obey.
Henry E. Heffner and Carl Cohen who are proponents of animal experimentation point out that it is necessary because it can protect human health. However, Robert Garner and Sarah Rose A. Miller who are opponents of animal experimentation claim that it is unacceptable because it causes animals to suffer. Two aspects of the arguments about animal research are about the use of laboratory animals and the idea of using substitution for live animals, and although the authors mostly disagree
They may surely love Christ, but in spite of their sincere love, Christological apologies of Mark Jones look to be certainly reasonable and irrefutable. I believe that one of the crucial points of Jones’ for Antinomian is that even Christ also depended on the Holy Spirit and needed assurance. The second Adam obviously showed how Christian should live and should be sanctified. Comprehension about this human nature of Christ may encourage a fallen believer to love and believe our Lord Christ because Christ also felt what we feel and struggled what we struggle, but finally He accomplished what we cannot do instead of
-On the other hand, many people like activists and welfarists from animal rights organizations, believe killing an animal should be and for them is against the law, because it is still an animal with feelings that was also trying to defend itself. -Some religions, such as Buddhism also believe that animals are superior to men and should therefore not be damaged in any way. They say that no one has the right to take away a living beings life, because they too have the right to exist. -In conclusion, no human being shall feel superior to other living beings, but when it comes to helping other people or saving yourself when you’re in danger, the injuring or maybe killing of an animal is nothing. -This same process happens when a human being is hurting another human being.
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