Is Killing Animals or Making Them Suffer for Human Ends Morally Defensible - Essay Example

Is killing animals, or making them suffer, for human ends morally defensible? People have always needed animals for various reasons for the sake of either necessity or convenience. I believe animals exist to help humanity survive and get by with life with less hardship as possible. I do not see a problem of having some cows herded and raised to be butchered and turned into someones lunch or my steak dinner. On the other hand, I would think it is highly considered to be grotesque as much as unnecessary to brutally beat or torture a hapless kitten. 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 have to vote for the animal to undergo experimentation. That does not mean I look at animals any lower than a human being, but it is perhaps an instinct to preserve ones own kind at the expense of another. Now if you ask me a question whether scientific experimentation should be done between a stray dog or a human serial killer, I would most probably choose the human serial killer since the human poses a more serious threat to other humans as compared to a stray dog. I would justify that the killing or hurting of animals for scientific experimentation as something that should be done only if it is needed. Aside from my personal perspective, most scientific experimentation on animals has no clear relation to the problems of human beings. Singer believes that such experiments and, many others like them, show that any benefits to humans are either nonexistent or uncertain, while the losses to members of other species are certain and real (66). Tests are done on monkey to see how certain amounts of radioactive or chemical elements affect them negatively and postulate it would, probably, have the same effects on human beings. In the case of animals becoming food for humans, I find nothing wrong with that as long as eating is a necessity. Eating animal meat is only needed as far as eating lifestyles are concerned. I would see it as it being alright to have a slice of roast beef as part of a balance diet, but having to be a glutton about it is already considered abusive itself as much as it is unhealthy. Singers report says: If animals count in their own right, our use of animals for food becomes questionable - especially when animal flesh is a luxury rather than a necessity. Eskimos living in an environment where they must kill animals for food or starve might be justified in claiming that their interest in surviving overrides that of the animals they kill (62). As far as I know, having to eat more than one can swallow is not a very savoury experience for any average person’s diet and nutrition. In reference to that statement, I would come to understand that having to kill to eat is understandable, but gluttony is not considered necessary and is considered very wastefully indulgent in my personal opinion. It cannot be helped for the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of human beings who actually overeat, coupled with the fact that the human population is continuing to rapidly expand with growing food needs. For this reason more innovative forms of intensive farming utilize science and technology to the point that animals are seen merely as objects than living life forms. To be able to have meat at a cost that a person can afford, society has been more than willing to accept practices of meat production that place living animal in the most seemingly uncomfortable conditions. Animals could then be viewed as if they are raw factory resources that or more of an object of utility and nothing else. Besides that, research has been made that free-range animals are healthier than those found on farm factories. Even the meat eaten from free-range animals are healthier to consume by humans. The reason behind this is that animals that have been flocked to farm factories not only have stressful conditions, but are usually fed with feeds that are usually chemically enhanced to affect the physical conditions of the animals. Stress also affects animals in a way as very human being does as well. Stress induces hormones that are unhealthy toxins to the body, and if meat containing such hormones is devoured, that substance will be transferred to the consumer of the meat. Free-range animals do not experience as much stressing conditions because they are allowed to graze freely in the land or pasture they flock at and eat the natural vegetation or produce provided by the local environment. These conditions provide a healthier state for an animal to live. Regan says that mammalian animals have a welfare as they fare well or ill during the course of their life, and the life of some animals is, on balance, experientially better than the life of others (82). The problem with having free-range animals, despite the better treatment, is that it does not help as much in dealing with the problem of human food demands. There is usually not enough fertile land to feed, and even more support, all domesticated animals to be raised healthily. Another reason is that raising free-range animals is more time consuming than animals that are herded into factory farms. As much as people would prefer the healthier choice and also for better animal welfare, the personal demands of human beings is what would make the method of free-ranging animals unfeasible. As much as I personally believe that animals deserve better treatment, it would be difficult in having to choose between the good healths of animals while some people starve to death at such expense. Perhaps one human activity that I consider as simple and plain cruelty to animals would be game hunting or poaching. From what I last remember, such an activity is considered a recreation instead of a necessary thing to do for the sake of survival. To go about being hunted for no other reason than being a target sport leaves no real benefits for a person other than some moments of entertainment or adrenaline rush. It would be more understandable that the hunting of animals is needed to feed when other means or access to food is not possible. This was how life was during ancient time until the advent of the 19th century. It is the case now, however, that the improvements in technology have made access to other sources of food possible. Hunting animals then is not needed at all to gather food. Hunting animals for fun, on the other hand is very wasteful and inconsiderate of life itself. In other words, to hunt animals for sport shows a disregards and lack of respect for life. I can only imagine that if I was lost in some jungle, I would know how it feels to be hunted by a tiger stalking by looking for its next meal. It can also be placed into perspective on how animals must feel when being placed in that situation. It should be remembered and considered that animals also have feelings and express emotions just as humans do. Singer says: The basis of my belief that animals can feel pain is similar to the basis of my belief that my daughter can feel pain. Animals in pain behave in much the same way as humans do, and their behaviour is sufficient justification for the belief that they feel pain. It is true that, with the exception of those apes who have been taught to communicate by sign language, they cannot actually say that they are feeling pain - but then when my daughter was very young she could not talk, either. She found other ways to make her inner states apparent, thereby demonstrating that we can be sure that a being is feeling pain even if the being cannot use language (69). Since animals exhibit a close degree of emotional affinity to human beings, should we not consider the fact that such creatures also deserve the chance to exist happily and with something to look forward to? Regan points out: Like us, animals live well relative to the degree to which they pursue and obtain what they prefer, they take satisfaction in pursuing and getting what they prefer, and what they pursue and obtain is in their interest. That the range of possible satisfactions in their case is less than ours shows not that their welfare is in all essential respects unlike ours but that some of the things we have an interest in are, so far as we know, peculiar to us, with the result that the contributions satisfying these interests makes to out welfare lacking in their case. Differ though animals and humans do in some respects, however, the resemblances are just as noteworthy. We share with animals a set of biological, social, and psychological interests. As we are benefited to the extent that we have increased opportunities to satisfy these interests harmoniously, so, too, are animals (93-94). There are other recreational activities human beings can do without having to kill or harm animals and turn their heads or skins to wall trophies or house decoration. A living being does not deserve to be a home ornament. I can only help but wonder the feeling it must be like if my head were to be placed on someone’s wall to be displayed to my hunter. That would be a frightening thought. With all of these in mind, the authors Singer and Regan wants readers and people in general to be more aware and concerned about the way we treat animals. In an ethical perspective, I would agree that all life should be treated with a great degree of reverence because each living being has a purpose as to why it exists. Despite my personal respect and adherence to such an ethical outlook, I also would take into consideration against needless killing of animals for more practical reasons as well. The matter of preserving wildlife biodiversity should be a concern for humanity. Each wildlife plays part of the natural cycle in the environment as nature’s chains of producers-consumers-scavengers are needed for a healthy habitat to survive. Biodiversity is what makes an environment thrive as each organism does its part. The loss of biodiversity on a habitat will affect humans as well. Without wolves, bears, lions, foxes or tigers, the population growth will suddenly shift toward the herbivores that will eat plants in a higher rate, destroying habitats along with it by denying sufficient vegetation for re-growth. Also, if herbivores were mostly hunted for food by humans, carnivores will not be able to eat. This results to carnivores coming into clashes with human encounters. Carnivores then continue to die out because humans generally fear and hunt them and due to the fact that these carnivores are just in need for more open spaces and areas to hunt for their food. The more needless killing of animals only helps and quickens the loss of biodiversity, and this creates an ecological chain of disasters to the environment. My personal conclusion about this philosophical issue is that the killing of animals for human benefits is not one that is absolute or taking one side of the problem. It really depends on how one should deal with the killing of animals for human needs. To experiment on animals for scientific reasons would be futile and a sad waste of life when it really has no significant application to the problems of human beings. In the case of killing animals for food, I believe that such taking of life is necessary for human needs. On the other hand, I do not agree of having animals to be herded and treated in the most uncomfortable conditions and only hope or wish that farm factory methods of livestock handling would be more comfortable to animals. As far as free-range animal raising is concerned, it is better idea but with no better amount of means to make it effective in the long term. Works Cited Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. California: University of California Press, 1983. Print. Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print. Read More