If possessing superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human for his or her purposes, why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans?
There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative and able to use language than some humans, as in the case of a chimpanzee compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights? Conditions on factory farms or fur farms aren t any worse than in the wild, where animals die of starvation, disease or predation, are they? At least the animals on factory farms are fed and protected. This argument was used by those who owned slaves in the US claiming that African-Americans were better off as slaves on plantations than as free men and women. The same could also be said of people in prison, yet prison is considered one of society’s harshest punishments. Animals on factory farms suffer so much that it is inconceivable that they could be worse off in the wild. The wild isn t wild to the animals who live there; it s their home. There the
Related Questions
- If possessing superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human for his or her purposes, why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans?
- Why doesn the lack of sensory input reclaim "processing power" for the brain, possibly boosting cognitive capacity?
- How Do You Study The Physiology Of Digestion In The Human Body?
