Because some animals who used to be as test subjects could create a new cure to heal humanity, develop new surgical techniques and discover new cosmetic brands like mascara, eyeliner, foundation, and lips gloss. Nevertheless, people should realize the fact that the animals are creatures who have souls, not an equipment or a tool to mess with. Whatever you discover, people have to re-discover it again. Not only animals who suffer due these experiments (Peter Tatchell,2009). Likewise, it is also important to know that some animals cannot be saved after they face their destiny through these horrible and failing experiments.
Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia.
The use of animals for gaming and entertainment purposes constitute animal cruelty because it is heartbreaking, unnecessary and dangerous. Initially many would argue that the use of animals for entertainment does not constitute as animal cruelty because they aren't tortured. For example, some people say that zoos are essential because it is safer
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
Animals are living creatures that have feelings just like a human being. Animals are not like us on the physical part, but that doesn’t mean that we have the right to kill, hurt or even experiment with them. If you ever had a pet or knew someone related to you who had a pet, they’d probably always be talking about how kind, sweet, beautiful, and lovely their animals are. Animal are even used to test products such as Shampoos, perfumes and cosmetics. Those products aren’t like the ones we use, they have different types of chemicals and they try them on the animals to see if it will affect us.
Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without zoos? Would animals have more freedom and prosper? From my perspective, they would. Some might say that zoos and captivity organizations help save endangered species and can provide a source of entertainment and education, but the benefits of keeping animals in zoos, circuses, and the like are far outweighed by the disadvantages and drawbacks. In my opinion, animals should not be taken into captivity because of their inhumane treatment, lack of natural freedom, and lackluster regulations to defend them.
These opinions, however, need a basic theory of justice to base their arguments and legitimize them. Justice scholars have talked little about animal rights, some like Rawls have explained in detail their theory of justice without much involvement in the animal rights case. Then there are other scholars who argument the case of animal rights basing it in these scholar understandings. It is a problem that has been largely ignored in subjects of social justice. Nowadays many advocacy groups try to form a theory of justice to integrate animal to human rights and make it more prominent.
Furthermore, while critics argue that laws have been issued which protect the physical and mental health of animals used as test subjects, the Animal Welfare Act is only US law that governs the use of laboratory animals. For example, the People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) wrote an article regarding the Animal Welfare Act and its inefficiency in protecting lab animals. The article explained that no experiment is prohibited, no matter how grievous or petty; that painkillers are never required; and when alternatives to animal test subjects are feasible, federal law does not require their use. This alludes to the fact that the only law attempting is allowing laboratory animals to be tortured. They can be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged.
It isn’t a good picture, isn’t it? Then, why is it different than animals? In addition, according to “Animal Liberation,” Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments” ( Singer). This quote implies that people who discriminate against animals have mental impairments which are initially correct. If someone approves of torturing defenseless animals for no reason, they are
Animals are animals which is where his reason lies and is the reason animal equality should not be invoked. Studies done by Maneesha Deckha a professor at the University of Victoria affirms, “Many of us who live with non-human animals would count our non-human companions as members of our families, even as our kin. Yet the law’s definition of family, however much it has shifted towards the inclusion of non-normative relationships, still excludes non-humans and even commodifies them as chattels. For this, and a multitude of other reasons, animals merit better legal recognition”. Which she then reasons why ethically animals should not be given equality due to it being absurd.