|
|||||||||||||
|
By Punkerslut
Or do animals simply exist to further the interests of humans? Ought we take into consideration the interests of animals, such as avoiding pain and attaining happiness? Where, in the realm of consideration, do animals stand? Humans also are animals. However, such would be scientific classification. The important similarity shared between humans and animals is that both can think and feel. They both are sentient. Just as you would see a human wince, cry, or a scream if it were hit, so you will see a dog wince and cry of struck. Indeed, humans and animals are both sentient beings that can both feel pain and that both can feel suffering. That is why I shall never kill, abuse, or consume an animal, be it human or non-human. A non-human animal has pain sensors and is capable of suffering, just as I may, so what better am I? What worse could the non-human animal be? When I take someone's interests into consideration (interests such as possible future hopes and attaining pleasure), I do not discriminate. If it is wrong to discriminate against someone because they are born with a different color skin, then it certainly must be wrong to discriminate against someone because they are born with four legs, with wings, or with feathers. There is no justification for killing someone because they are born with a different skin color, and there certainly is no justification for killing someone because they are born with a different quantity of legs. With that said, slavery and eating meat must be moral atrocities. Punkerslut,
|
