Meat or Mercy is the question that Kohak brings up in the reading. It is a very controversial question and it can have three responses. "We can refuse all limitations and declare unabashedly that an animal suffering is natural and necessary for achieving higher values." The people that usually side with this are ones who have not given the matter much thought. The second way we could respond would be to refuse to participate in their abuse in any way. This is usually followed by people like radical animal liberationists. These people refuse to compromise. The third way is to seek compromises.
I think that I respect animals and nature in general, but I do not find it wrong to use animals for human needs. Therefore, in a round about way I would be sided with third response which is to seek compromise. We should not make animals suffer just because we feel like it; there should be a purpose behind having the animals suffer. I think that using meat for a food resource is a perfectly acceptable reason for us to kill an animal. When it comes to experiments, I think that scientist should be allowed to do whatever they want. Singer says that 95% of experiements are unnecessary;however, I feel that if they are doing an experiment there has to be a reason for it or people wouldn't do it. It may not be an experiment to save a human life, or to find a cure for cancer, but there is some reason for the experiment.
I think that this topic is very controversial and there the answers lie much deeper than what we are learning about and what the book is telling us. I think that for a person to side that they have to be very knowledgable and have much research to back up their answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment