Is killing animals , or making them suffer, for human ends morally Essay

Is killing animals , or making them suffer, for human ends morally defensible - Essay Example My opinion extends to other human activities that put harm animal which are not necessary, such as poaching or game hunting or animal fights. There is a fundamental moral principle which permits us to share a kind of equal treatment that concerns all human beings and with every kind of differences that exist between and every one of us. I believe that this moral code is not only limited to human beings, but also to other living sentient beings in our environment. I believe that respect for life even extends to non-human living organisms and that animals have every right to be treated with much care and equanimity as we do with a fellow human being. Even if non-human animals are lacking superior and complex rational faculties and capabilities compared to humans, their existence is something to be valued and not to be brushed aside so brusquely. If one were to look at it, an average person would rather dismiss the issue of animal rights while not being able to sit down and swallow the problems of racial discrimination. The reason behind this is that people in general, most of the time ignorantly or unintentionally, have speciesism as part of their mindset. Speciesism could be defined as the belief that one kind of species among all other members of the group is more superior to the rest, therefore the rationale for dominance, subjugation or annihilation of the superior specie against the more inferior. In this case, humanity has seen itself at the highest pedestal of the food chain. Singer made this observation on speciesism in this manner: This attitude reflects a popular prejudice against taking the interests of animals seriously - a prejudice no better founded than the prejudice of white slaveowners against taking the interests of their African slaves seriously. It is easy for us to criticise the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold. What is needed now is a willingness to follow the arguments where they lead, without a prior assumption that the issue is not worth our attention (55-56). I would now come to think that if animals were in the same level as human beings, perhaps in the eyes of a Higher Being such as God, animals were and are still the most abused group of organisms on the Earth. Yet, most of us human beings are not too concerned about this because there is either lack of care or concern. It can be said then that the lack of compassion is what kills animals by human hands. I think there is more to that than just a lack of care for life, something that is more logical. For example, If a person were to be asked whether it is better to put a human being or an animal as a test subject for a scientific experiment that could find a cure for a deadly disease and save millions of lives, would it be certain to say that the person would choose another human being to be put under the knife than an animal? Even if the person being asked was an animal lover or animal rights advocate, I most certainly doubt that any psychologically normal person would choose another human being in a heartbeat. People would rather have an animal go under the experimentation instead since it human beings have more attachment and concern for another human being than an animal. I will not be a hypocrite to say that I know any better about this matter. If being asked the same question, I would