Treating Animals Ethically - Essay Example

Treating Animals Ethically Different individuals in the society have varying and widely divergent views concerning therelationship between humans and animals. Some have a view that is more passionate about the animals than they do for humans (Tester 23). Some other people treat animals with little care because they perceive them as less deserving of their great care. The views held by such individuals depend on emotional, moralistic, or practical grounds. Many people base on the emotional and practical aspects of the relationship and forget the rest. Such individuals always consider the mutualism of their existence with the animals, which they keep in their homes. To individuals these, animals are for human beneficence, in terms of clothing, companionship, food, sport, work, and research. Some people also consider the fact that using animals in such a manner may cause pain to the animals. The feelings result to a thought of the morals of keeping animals as pets. Some consider the relevance of existing animal rights and refute the idea of animals’ entitlement to basic rights. It implies that the concern of ethics when handling animals is a controversial debate between proponents and critics of proper animal care. The essay explores the moral concerns of keeping pets and the care of other animals. Further, it recommends the best approaches to dealing with animals. The Use of Animals V. Ethical Concerns For a deep understanding of the ethical concerns of keeping animals, there is a consideration of the uses of such animals. One of the main uses of animals is medical research, which gives findings for solving human problems such as disease and death. Some researchers use parts of the animal bodies such as the brain, which causes them distress. For instance, in a certain experiment, a scientist required identifying a certain lesion in the brain tissue of a cat. The procedures of such an operation is a grisly one because in entirely kills the cat. The researchers use a pair of pliers to detach the skulls from the bodies and then break it extract the desired part of the brain (Herzog 246). Before the process materializes, the animal undergoes a series of painful experiences such as injections with formalin and other drugs. If people were to consider the ethics of dealing with the animals, they could discover that such a process is painful. The foremost ethical concern in the case related to the question of whether humans share in the pain of animals or not. Most individuals feel that treating animals in an oppressive manner is unethical and inhumane. The researchers in the same cases feel depressed because of what they feel for the animals. Such feelings could probably result from the fact that animals are like humans, with feelings. Some train them to react in manners likely suitable for them. Everyone can consider that training animals is a part of the compassion that humans show towards them. Some animals gain deep attachment to their caretakers (Herzog 243). Some people could argue that animals are food for humans. Considerably, that viewpoint is valid because people kill animals of their choice to supplement their diets with proteins. Those who advocate the killing of animals for meat and other products such as leather do not probably have the ethical concern. If someone were to argue against the point, they could identify that there are carnivorous animals who are predators. It is realistic that all members of the Felidae eat considerable amounts of flesh (Herzog 244). Each day, 94 million American cats eat about 12 million pounds of meat, equivalent to about 3 million chicken. Others feed their dogs on birds, which contradicts the advocacy of animal rights especially against slaughtering. Another challenge emanates from the idea of keeping predator pets such as dogs, snakes, dogs, cats and others. If humans were to take care of such animals, they would kill others to provide them with food. That would be insensitive and complicate the matter in relation to ethical concerns. There are cases where some people kill cats and serve them to snakes as food (Herzog 245). It is even more ironical that some others quit eating meat and adopting vegetarian lifestyles out of their love for animals. Some forget that eating fish is still sacrificing the lives of animals (Herzog 243). Solving such a dilemma would require an intervention of the works of a French philosopher Rene Descartes. Descartes asserts that animals are more like biological robots, devoid of rational thought (BBC Ethics Guide 1). While there should be some regard on their wellbeing, they are still for human usage. Some argue that animals are not conscious, and they exist to serve humans and lack morality in themselves (BBC Ethics Guide 1). It, for that reason, follows that the issue of ethics with relevance to the use of animals for food is a matter of emotion and not ethics. However, whatever the case, what individuals hold for such characters remains debatable. Another concern would be whether people should consider animals as being more intimate than fellow humans are. There are cases when some people consider pets as the most precious belongings, better than their family (Herzog 243). Again, such a behavior holds according to practice and emotion. There are circumstances when animal caretakers become too intimate to their jobs and the animals they guard. According to BBC Ethics Guide (1), animals do not can think rationally, which rules them out of the best friends an individual can ever have. Such an argument does not dismiss the idea that people should not like their pets. It only emphasizes that individuals should not treat animals with the same esteem as humans because they do not have the same consciousness as humans do. Animals, as a result, do not belong to the moral community because a moral community comprises humans. The humans live together in close ties with an understanding of morality and laws. It is the reason for caging animals while humans walk about freely. Animals should not have the same capacity as individuals who tame them; they are originally from the wilderness. It would be misleading to say that animals have rights because they are irrational and lack morality (BBC Ethics Guide 1). If they were reasonable enough, they could stay on their own and take care of themselves with the same decency as man does. Conclusion The question of morality concerning human-animal relationships is debatable. Argumentatively, what some hold as rights depend on what they feel as well as their experiences with animals and not justified directly. Animals do not have moral values because they do not belong to the moral society. The basis of such a thought is to dispel the notion that some individuals hold concerning intimacy with animals. It would look odd for someone to consider a pet, for example, as more intimate and valuable than his or her families. Behaving in a similar way would be degrading human dignity in likening their values to beasts. However, such points do not pin any opinion down, partly because people are rational beings, able to make their independent decisions. Everyone should consider that he or she has a moral responsibility to care for the environment and animals inclusive. Individuals should use their rational thought to treat the animals with considerable levels of care. Institutions and other human groups need to constitute laws, which will guard against careless handling of animals while permitting levels of control by humans. Such laws should consider that animals are subject to human manipulation and use, not the reverse. Works Cited Herzog, Hal. Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why Its so Hard to Think Straight About Animals. New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2011. Print. Tester, Keith. Animals and Society: The Humanity of Animal Rights. Routledge, 2014. Print. The BBC Ethic Guide. “Animal Rights.” BBC. 2014. Web. 10 Feb. 2015. < http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml> Read More