The Moral Status of Animals

All human and non-human animals are sentient beings and it is morally wrong to cause unnecessary pain and suffering towards any sentient being for the benefit of humanity especially when the product of the non-human animal’s pain and suffering is not a necessity to human existence. Therefore, the anthropogenic pain and suffering of non-human animals for reasons that are not necessities to human existence is morally wrong. I will be discussing three topics that pertain to the anthropogenic unjust and immoral treatment of animals: the inhumane practices of factory farms; the unnecessary pain and suffering caused by the fur trade; and the torture endured through animal testing by cosmetic companies. I will conclude this paper on the discussion of when it is morally permissible for the anthropogenic use of animals as a means to save the greatest amount of human and non-human animal lives.
It is valid to say that humans and animals do not deserve equal treatment, but they do deserve equal consideration. This is a point that Peter Singer makes in his essay All Animals are Equal. Singer goes onto say that if a being is sentient than that being has interests; their interests are to experience as much pleasure and as little pain as possible. They have a will to live and therefore they have an interest in self-preservation.  We should not take advantage of any living creature based on their species because it is not justifiable and there is no basis for it. Just as there is no basis or justification behind racism and sexism. Speciesism can easily fit in with racism and sexism because it discounts the interests of a species who clearly has interests, just as racism discounts interests of a particular race and sexism discounts interests of a particular sex.
The practice of the mass breeding and the genetic engineering of chickens, cattle, pigs, etc., as a way to make profit is an accepted method for factory farms today. After these animals are brought into the world through mass breeding and genetic engineering they are subjected to large amounts of pain and suffering until they are murdered. Their murder is usually not a pain-free way to leave this earth either. Laying hens spend their entire lives cooped up in battery cages where they cannot turn around or move their wings. Their feet sometimes grow around the wire that they stand on. Chickens get their beaks cut off, so that they will not peck the workers in self-defense. By the way a chicken getting its beak serrated off feels the same as a human getting their finger cut off.  Cattle and pigs get castrated without any painkillers. Some animals are still alive and conscious when they are being cut up, dropped into boiling water for the removal of their feathers or skinned alive. The bottom line is that these animals are capable of feeling the same pain as you and me.
Food is necessary to human survival, but food made from animals is not a necessity to human survival or existence.  As a matter of fact, humans would be much healthier and they would live longer if they were to give up eating any food derived from animals.  In addition, the land that is used to hold the animals on factory farms can be used to grow much more whole foods such as vegetables and grains. So, it would be wrong to say that factory farms and their products are necessary to human existence. The underlying reason why factory farms exist is to put money in the pockets of large corporations.  Therefore, the only interests taken into consideration are the profits that the farmer will make. The interests of the animals completely go out the window proving there is inequality in the consideration of interests here.
Is there a reason to wear fur in the 21st century? No. However, people continue to wear fur to make fashion statements and to prove that they have some sort of hierarchy in their social status. The participants in the fur trade today, both buyers and sellers do not take into consideration the interests of the animals who died so that people can make statements on fashion and wealth. We know what humanity gets out of wearing fur, but what do animals give up so that their fur can be worn? Similar to animals on factory farms, animals on fur farms spend their lives in tiny cages. Once they come out of their cages they are either electrocuted or skinned alive for their fur. Again the pain these animals feel is the same pain we as humans would feel if we were being electrocuted or skinned alive. Sometimes it is just easier and cheaper for the furriers to stomp the animal to death or strangle it. Once again profit controls human interests while ignoring the interests of our fellow animals. One may say, well it’s okay to go out into the woods and kill an animal for its fur by setting up traps. This idea is wrong. Traps in the wild cause animals to die a slow death that include several days of suffering. Sometimes, the animal will chew off its foot to get out of the trap and then the animal will bleed to death or suffer deadly infections, thus prolonging its pain and suffering. Do the furriers interests in making a profit or the fashionistas and socialite’s interests in looking good outweigh the vast amounts of suffering that fur animals endure? I think not. Today, fur is not a necessity for clothing. There is plenty of cotton, rayon and denim to keep humanity warm. Therefore it is morally wrong to use animals for their fur because “looking good” is not necessary for human existence.
The human interest in “looking good” outweighing animals interests in living a life without pain and suffering is also the case in cosmetic company testing. According to PETA, companies such as L’Oreal and Revlon pour the chemicals of their new products into the eyes of rabbits to test that their product is safe for human use. One could argue that it is important to know that the products we use are safe. However, there are plenty of cosmetic companies out there that do not test on animals; maybe their product is a few dollars more, but is saving a dollar every time someone buys make-up a greater interest for humanity than the animal’s interest in not having their eyes burn out? Why don’t L’Oreal and Revlon switch to methods that do not involve animal testing? They probably want to make more profit by being on the cutting edge of cosmetics and testing on animals is their easy way to achieve their profitability. Again, profit is the backbone in human interest and animals continue to suffer.
The only time anthropogenic testing on animals is morally justified is when the results of the testing will benefit the greatest number in any species whether it be human animals or non-human animals. This theory is associated with the utilitarian theory, “the greatest good for the greatest number.”  Biomedical testing on animals in AIDS or cancer research would benefit the greatest number of humans; there are tests on animals as well that can save that animal’s entire species.  However, for any of these tests there should be the absolute minimal amount of pain inflicted as possible.  In addition, these tests should be non-invasive and the quarters where the animals are kept should be comfortable.  It would be morally wrong to capture an adult animal in its habitat and take it to a lab because the animal will be confused and scared; it will not understand the reason for its captivity and thus suffer from fear. Any animals used in research should be born and raised within a laboratory environment. If the animal was a test subject for AIDS or cancer research, the animal should be painlessly euthanized when the experiment is over. If the animal was being tested for a psychological study and not injected with a disease, than that animal should be sent to a conservatory or sanctuary at the end of the research study.
The only dilemma with allowing animals to be tested in biomedical research and psychological research is why can’t other non-rational sentient beings be tested, for example, comatose patients or marginal human beings. A further inquiry would be, why can’t we just test AIDS and cancer on murderers who are waiting on death row; why is it that we only use non-human animals in testing that would benefit the greatest number of all human animals. This to me is speciesism.
All sentient beings feel the same pain on the same levels.  A quote from PETA’s president Ingrid Newrick is as follows, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.” This quotes supports the claim that any being that feels pain, has a will to live and an interest in themselves whether they are rational or irrational and should have their interests taken into consideration. They should not have to suffer so that a rational species can satisfy their material needs.