Even though it would be very reasonable to get rid of animal cruelty, it wouldn’t only indicate the banning of animal testing, but also the preventing of the production of clothing and the provision of food such as the meat of an animal Even though there are many reasons for claiming animal testing to be wrong, scientists don’t stop to use animals for medicines and scientific research. Moreover, big companies also use animals to test for cosmetics. Furthermore, it could be stated that using animals for cosmetics is ‘more’ morally wrong than using them for scientific research and testing of new medicines, due to the fact that cosmetics aren’t necessary for our living and well-being. So when arguing about animal testing, it could be considered that there are two
Steiner is a strict “ethical” vegan who believes that veganism is necessary because using animals for human consumption is morally wrong, while Wang argues that veganism is a transaction that could save the planet from its current fate. So, who is right, or is there really a definite answer? First, Gary Steiner offers an emotion-based, tug at your heartstrings perspective on why we should become vegan. His main claim (of policy) is that we should become vegans because it is inhumane to kill animals for human needs. He supports his cause by refuting two counterarguments from those who ask if animal suffering is comparable to human suffering: those who believe animals are not as important as humans because they are not in God’s image, and those who believe animals do not think as humans and so cannot suffer as
Instead, we need to consider them equally. This is the principle advocated by Peter Singer, a famous Australian philosopher, following earlier arguments by Bentham who stated that we must extend moral status to every being capable of pain and suffering. This utilitarian principle involves including animals in the calculus for utility. By applying this principle, we would have to stop raising animals in factory farms for meat. However, Singer is not entirely against eating meat.
Mistreating animals as if one does not care for them is the same as mistreating humans. By mistreating poor doubtless animals it affects them and can sometimes lead into suffering stress. If humans are able to protect each other from harm, then why cannot animals do the same thing by having rights? This question is usefully asked for those who try to protect the rights of animals. In the article Of Primates and Personhood the author Ed Yong, a science journalist, contends, “I feel we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals… ‘all creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status’” (5).
I know most will not cut beef out altogether, but it is the little things like not having steak for one meal that have the biggest impacts. Or if people cannot bring themselves to eliminate meat from their diets, trying to buy more meat from cattle that are somewhat local to them can help reduce transportation fossil fuels. Wherever you stand, everyone can make choices that improve the health of our
Other CAS scholars such as Jonathan L. Clark, in his article “Labourers or Lab Tools? Rethinking the Role of Lab Animals in Clinical Trials,” and Agnieszka Kowalczyk, in her article “Mapping Non-Human Resistance in the Age of Biocapital,” likewise take up the question of animal resistance, both concerning themselves with Foucault’s theories of power relations as well as Marxist approaches. While Wadiwel, Clark, and Kowalczyk all offer insightful and compelling analyses of animal resistance, they only arrive at edge of discussing what animal resistance would mean to the ALM, leaving a gap regarding how acknowledging animal resistance could profoundly alter the animal liberation project moving
Animals Rights In society, animals are being killed for food, fur, and experiments. This raises the question is it ethical to kill other animals for our own person gain? As human, we live in a society where it is humane to kill other animals when it comes to survival, clothing and to help cure diseases. But this is not really answering the question why is this okay? As humans, the reason why it is ethical to kill other species is based on protecting humans, being happy, and the fact that humans are more intelligent.
What are the ethics of animal testing? I think this question can only be answered by the list of issues and limitations of animal testing. Therefore, from my real life situation: Using animals for biomedical researches can be beneficial, but detrimental for the animals. In my opinion, I would like to say it is unethical. Biomedical researches have proven that it is unethical but have a scientific benefits, for us human beings.
Also taking a stand on whether or not to eat meat, Jay Bost also invokes a principle in his essay, “Sometimes It’s More Ethical to Eat Mean Than Vegetables,” that was published in the New York Times. He invokes the principle that eating meat is ethical because it preserves the natural systems that exist in the environment. While David Wallace invokes the principle that creatures should not suffer in order to satisfy our needs and wants, Jay Bost arouses the principle to preserve the environment; however, they both overlook that core values that influence a person’s principle vary from person to person, and not everyone is going to be persuaded to agree with their
Therefore, without animal testing, many of these would never reach the market (PETA, 2012). There is also the argument that we need to observe how products work in the complex interactions of cells, tissues and organs in living animals (PETA, 2012). It can also be argued that many medical students use animals in their own research to learn about the human body before they can become qualified. In this case, animals are already being used to save lives (Orlans, 1993). A final argument is that we already eat meat, which causes animals to suffer and lives to be lost.
Yet, for some reason this is something people are still turning a blind eye too. It is not like we kill these animals for health reasons or survival we do it mainly because it tastes good. As stated by Gary Yourofsky: “The problem is that humans have victimized animals to such a degree, that they aren’t even considered victims. They aren’t even considered at all. They’re nothing.