ANIMAL RIGHTS: THE EVOLUTION OF MORALITY

As human beings, we are masters of our domain. We are the undisputed occupiers of the top rung of the food chain. In this, we have the burden of choice. We must decide where we will be merciful and where we will be ruthless, where we will defend and where we will persecute, where we will commit our attention and where we will be ignorant. We contend that reason and necessity govern our behavior. We believe, at least individually, that we are compassionate beings. And yet today, we are collectively ruthless, we collectively persecute, and we are collectively ignorant regarding those beings which are weaker than we: we are the cruel overlords of the animal kingdom.

At present, on an average day in the United States, 130,000 cattle, 7,000 calves, 360,000 pigs, and 24 million chickens are killed(Williams 65). An average day! And these figures exclude the hoards of rats, mice, dogs, cats, and primates that are brutally tortured until death in research labs across the country. Surely, no form of genocide undertaken in human history can match these numbers.

If we are to consider ourselves worthy of our elevated position in nature, we must acknowledge and protect the rights of the animal kingdom. Animals, like humans, deserve to live a life free of suffering and the threat of wanton slaughter. Once this fundamental right is accepted, some mandatory provisions may be understood as self-evident. Namely, that animals should no

. . .
lessness" and "psychological death" by isolating them, or by placing them in total darkness indefinitely. Rats and mice are genetically altered and prompted to develop diseases and deformities. Chimpanzees are vivisectioned, repeatedly infected with human diseases like the AIDS virus and cancer, and then are slaughtered and autopsied(Williams 63-64). In virtually every case of lab testing, the element of suffering, either physical or psychological is essential to the research. This gives us cause to question it from a moral perspective. If these creatures could not suffer, they would simply be of no value to the researchers. That they are vulnerable and can ravaged is precisely what deems them appropriate for study. Obviously, the moral implications are devastating, particularly when we consider that by and large, history has shown that artificially induced diseases in animals practically never result in a cure that can be used on humans. In 1992, the Harvard Health Letter, published by the Harvard Medical School, listed the top ten medical advances of the year that were understood to have the greatest long-range impact on human health. Of the ten honored research studies, only two had used animal experimentation(Althoff
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
EVOLUTION MORALITY, Princess Diana, Virtually HIV, Mad Cow, Medical School, Department Agriculture, Putting People, Animal Liberation, Press Inc, animal rights, Update April, press inc pp, san diego greenhaven, san diego, viewpoints san diego, animal kingdom, opposing viewpoints, viewpoints san, diego greenhaven, rights opposing, rights opposing viewpoints, inc pp, opposing viewpoints san, greenhaven press, press inc,
Approximate Word count = 2436
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)