Elizabeth is an avid supporter of animal rights who guest lectures at her son’s work to showcase the issues of “animal cruelty”. Although the thought of treating animals humanely is an agreeable argument to side by, Costello’s approach to the subject was incorrect. In my opinion, she fails to use fitting analogies to explain why factory
There are many pros and cons of animal testing. One side agrees, and the other opposes. People all over the world have different opinions on this issue. Should you let the 100 million animals suffer just to fit the need of yourself, or should the animals live the life there suppose to? There is a heated debate on whether animal testing should be avoided in the U.S. Should the animals be able to go threw alarming experiences that can cost them their life forever, or should the innocent animals be tested on to make sure the products we use are safe and fit our
Looking at pets for example, society implements laws protecting these animals because becoming aware of a pet in pain would lead to human discomfort due to numerous facts such as the strong friendly bond people have with their pets. Though if we look at the case of eating meat, most of society does not extend their moral code to protect the animals farmed or hunted for food because they are protecting their interests such as the pleasure they enjoy from the taste of meat or the energy it gives their bodies. The interest of not having to pay more than required is also a strong contributing factor to the way animals are treated. Here human moral code is not extended to look after these animals. Because even though farming and hunting animals has extreme consequences to the environment and the animals suffering on farms, it has little direct discomfort to humans such as seeing a mans best friend in pain.
Animals lives are just as important and valuable as humans. One website called SIRS Issues Researcher says “Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering” Website evidence also states “If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as dinner” This evidence supports the claim in three ways. One way is that the evidence makes some people picture animals
The natural life cycle depicts how animals and humans consume other species in order to survive. However, the issue about whether or not the consumption of meat is ethical has risen. Based on one’s belief and upbring, one may believe that eating meat is unethical while others chose to live a life where they eat meat based on their reference. Although, ultimately people have the decision to choose if they want to include meat in their diets, consuming meat is ethical as long as one is aware of what they eat and where these livestock are coming from. Having awareness of what one eats is important, making one conscious on where it originates and being grateful for the hard work it took in order to produce it.
Perhaps giving animals the likeness of a machine is to far. However, the concept of animals only being able to learn from experience and not from teaching the way humans do helps serperate the two parties and further push the idea that we are different and should not hold the same rights. Another argument used by the supporters of animal testing is the notion of voluntary consent. Human beings have the mental capacity to personally volunteer themselves for experimentation for the advancement of modern medicine if they so desired. Animals, on the other hand, lack this mental capacity.
Sargent 1 Harley Sargent Ms. Clements English 1301 12:00 9/25/17 Animal Rights Animal rights activists believe in giving the life of an animal the same importance as a human’s life. Animal welfare accepts that animals have interests but allow those interests to be traded away as long as the people benefit from the sacrifice. In contrast, animal rights theories say that animals, like humans, cannot be sacrificed or traded to benefit individuals and their needs. Animals should not have the same rights as humans because they were not put on this earth to serve as equals they were put here for us to benefit from. Animal activist want to state their opinion on how farm animals are mistreated but do not witness this abuse first hand, or they just hear it through the grapevine and believe what they hear.
You could save an animal from drowning, but you could save a person from drowning too; the choice is difficult. You could protest for animals to have rights and not be tortured at slaughterhouses and still eat them from factories that do things like kill them in an abusive way. Animal rights, animals should have some rights with some limitations. I have issues involving this topic about animal rights because i have mixed emotions about how we can experiment and torture animals but still have them as pets. In articles by Jeff McMahan, “Eat Animals The Nice Way”, and by Maureen Nandi Mitra, “Animals Are Persons, too”, they talk from two different positions where we should eat animals and another where we shouldn’t experiment on them and let them be.
Consequently, a utilitarian will view the plight of the test animals as acceptable if the net outcome is positive for all involved. For the utilitarian, however, the testing of cosmetics would be viewed as immoral, as cosmetic products are not essential to saving or improving human life. The higher the moral value assigned to the animal species, the less morally acceptable cosmetics testing becomes. Some might argue cosmetics testing on animals helps to produce products that promote human happiness, however, we are allowing non-human animals some level of rights, and therefore we should weigh the cost to the animals involved. Additionally, opponents to the cosmetics testing point to new technologies, like in vitro tissue testing, as an alternative to using animals (Gelfand, 2015).
The people that see animal testing as being useful, think that without animals, medicine and the military would not be where they are today. However, both sides of the animal cruelty argument, in favor of animal testing and against animal testing, prove points that people should see. Nevertheless, despite the belief that animal testing is beneficial,