Who is substantially animal interests are violated in scientific experiments - are tortured animals

Paturpinot this, linking it to this and inspired by this, I decided to just dwell on animals. I want to say that, from a moral philosophy paradigm of view, the use of animals for scientific experiments, food production or the production of clothing is immoral and it's nacho bar toppings not justified. I will base the utilitarian philosophy and moral arguments.
Who is substantially animal interests are violated in scientific experiments - are tortured animals, farms, animals can not meet their own basic interests of the fresh air and movement. The benefit of it is: luxury clothes, nacho bar toppings prepared food cheaper and potentially predictive science.
If beings have consciousness, the ability to understand what happened with them, who they are, then they are persons. Chimpanzee is a shining personal example. And should not restrict the fundamental rights of individuals, nacho bar toppings as each man and brute person nacho bar toppings has their own interests, which must be respected. One species can not enslave each other to meet their interests. Also warming the race can not enslave another race.
Of course, pigs and chickens should not be granted the right to vote because they like children unable to make a rational decision, but rather the satisfaction of the essential (life, freedom of movement, etc.). Because animals are based on the experience of well-being life, which they exercise on the basis of their own feelings. That people nacho bar toppings have in common with animals. And they must be respected.
It can be assumed that animals that do not respect our right that we give them. But there are also many people who do not respect the rights nacho bar toppings granted to them, because they (the same way as a large part of the animal), they are unable to understand. For example, infants and mentally ill people. The fact that they are unable to realize their rights, nacho bar toppings they do not give us the right to torture, medical purposes or kill to eat. This person appears pronounced distinction of being, not a person. Eg., The baby is not a person, but by the time he can appear in consciousness, and as such he can become mentally ill person can ever there was a person, but never again. nacho bar toppings
The question is not whether they are able to judge, nor on whether they are able to talk, but whether they can suffer? * Animals have their own reasons why they live in the world. They, like blacks, are not created for the white slaves, women and men. While this is the last I'm not sure. (Of course, that the joke :))
I read this, eating meatballs .... and councils where a pack of wolves eat deer or the deer is also not violated the rights? :) Well, in principle, it is my basic idea is that if we look at ourselves as an omnivorous species that eat both plants and meat, then eating the meat of other animals, we are in a sense equally wolves that eat deer. Reply Remove
I knew that this will open the Quick nervous! Secretly I am hoping for your comment. Thank you! :) People can not do without meat, wolves - can not. There are beings whose lives can not intervene - immoral animals. They satisfy their basic needs on the basis of primary his animal tendencies. I would like to hope the man has a higher moral being, with the decision of the needs should be based primarily on the principle in which the suffering person as little as possible, and as many people happiness is enhanced. What role, if there is a possibility to avoid distress to others. In other words, just because we can produce cheap meat, we do not allow cows to move freely, breathe fresh air and to freely interact with other species representatives. Your analogy can be applied to people in the case. If a mentally ill person has killed other people judge him, because he will be unable to rationally sit for which he has been convicted and they learn from their mistakes. Ps Bon appetit! ;) Reply Remove
Interesting. Generally, a person from a biological point of view, meat is needed because it contains amino acids that the human body do not produce itself and which must be taken. Of course, a large part of which is found in soy and even here and there, but in concentrated amounts are found directly in the red meat and fish. This puts meat eating as self-sacrifice, because Need it we do not give ourselves conceptually what nature we have, however, and eventually intends to charge you for the visits to the doctor, because nature does not like emptiness. Yes, probably, it is noble not to eat meat, but, knowing the importance of meat products, or can be blamed for people who eat because they Need it but do yourself a pair? The fact that the person has put meat production business and its profit interest are grown increasing efficiency, but actually it gets dzīvieku compression pens so that they can not move and burn calories which is baiting is another matter. It is a matter of dzīvniieku nacho bar toppings welfare. If they are meant for slaughter, it does not mean that these conditions nacho bar toppings are acceptable. Returning to the medicine - if the animal person thereafter has long existed in the question, how exactly is a vetrinārmedicīnu? Or the exploitation of animal tests in order to create drugs for animals is permissible? But we do not know of any parties to the true point of view -