My Thesis

It is a common goal many people share to go after what they want in life. It is not uncommon, however, for evil to triumph over good. People will get taken advantage of. For instance, look at human history. Consider the torturous conditions people have put other people in during America's racial segregation past. There was no need for those experiences of inhumane treatment, just as there is no reason for an animal to endure such. I am an advocate of animal welfare. I believe the way people treat animals can be necessary for human needs, but should thus be dictated by human emotion. Furthermore, when continuing use of animals for the needs of humans, we should not treat them inhumanely.

Some people may question if human use of animals is immoral. Some non-animal welfare supporters challenge that creatures that can't think or grasp the concept of morality are not worth the sacrifice of our welfare. Utilitarian Maxwell Goss asserts, "The pleasure that humans take in eating meat outweighs the suffering of the animal involved" (Qtd. in Dudley 58). Although I can agree with this up to a point, I cannot accept an overall conclusion that human emotion has to trump all steps to end animal suffering. I agree that eating meat can be an enjoyable experience. However, livestock that is raised for our consumption should not be abused during their often very short lives. I must implore that it is wrong for humans to create or endorse suffering for any animals in their care.

Farms raising animals for the production of meat are not always concerned for living conditions of their animals. Indeed cows raised for meat are fed the brains and nerve tissue of sheep (discovered to be the cause of mad cow disease), as well as fish meal, chicken litter (complete with chicken droppings), and slaughterhouse waste. On some farms, chickens meant to be eaten never go outdoors; they live their entire lives in groups of up to 20,000 birds in sheds where their droppings result in a level of ammonia that stings the eyes and is unhealthful to breathe (Lee and Warhol). These people operating these farms have no concern for the lives of those species.

Accordingly, animal rights movement groups are doing the best they can to call to attention the unnecessarily cruel and inhumane practices of large meat production companies. For example, large parts of the American cattle and poultry industry attempt to be efficient by inflicting tremendous pain and suffering upon the animals which they raise. Reports say that some animals are fully conscious as they have their throats slit (Dudley 55). In some chicken farm operations, chickens have their beaks removed to prevent them from pecking each other to death. Not to mention many of these animals are basically born to die. Cattle raised for beef are typically slaughtered at an age of 15 to 20 months, while typically cattle's lifespan is an average of 20 to 35 years old. Over 260 million turkeys were slaughtered for food in the United States, most at about fourteen to eighteen weeks of age (Dudley). Thus, this is reason we have turkey to eat at our disposal.

The way some humans treat animals can be both resourceful and unethical. People use animals in the production of steel, rubber, and plastic goods, in medical experiments, and for companionship and entertainment. These things people use animals for can create multiple industries and job opportunities, as well as provide great friends for some owners. According to William Dudley, "Both proponents and opponents of animal rights assume that treating animals necessarily means humans must make inconvenient or impossible sacrifices" (13). In other words, some people ultimately put their feelings of human well being before animal well being. Why not take into account the well being of these useful creatures?

While I do not contest that no one should eat meat or use animals for mankind in general, I am asserting that more needs to be done to ensure animal welfare. There are states that need to change their laws. In Ohio voters approved an amendment to their state constitution barring lawmakers and the voters from enacting any laws against animal cruelty applying to the agricultural industry (Clemmit). There is also little use for suffering of animals in other human enhancing welfare industries. For example, medical research on animals has had bad consequences to our own welfare. As a predictor of human reactions to drugs tested on animals they fall very short on being accurate. A drug called thalodomide, used to sedate pregnant woman used in the 1950s and '60s, failed to indicate in animal tests that the use led to children being born without limbs. Medical professionals even declare, "If we truly want predictive tests and research methods, it would seem logical to start looking intraspecies not interspecies" (Shanks and Greek). Indeed there are no guarantees in science, but why not make sure harmful tests are useful? Why not use animals for good?

In conclusion, I don't see any good reason for people to infer pain or suffering to animals. The government has already passed legislature to protect some animals from human maltreatment. The remaining problem being many of the laws passed aren't properly enforced. I am far from alone in being someone who is disgusted at the treatment of animals which some farms are deliberately practicing to ensure an idea of cost efficiency. While arguing against a movement to move animals out of the realm of property, writer Matt Kamen asserts that "banning the production of specialty foods due to such excessive methods would satisfy a great deal of animal rights activists by eliminating the more distasteful and cruel practices in the animal farming industry while not devastating the market or outlawing the products altogether"(187). In short, there has to be an effective solution for both our animals and humans welfare to be protected. We can all continuing using animals for our own purposes. However, when treating animals for our own needs, it is simply unnecessary to abuse them for any reason.

Works Cited:

Dudley, William,ed. Animal Rights. Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 2006. Print.


Lee, Deborah, and Tom Warhol. "Counterpoint: Industrial Agriculture Causes More Problems than it Solves." Points of View: Factory Farming (2009): 3. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.


Hauser, Mark D., Fiery Cushman and Mathew Kamen, Ed. People, Property, or Pets. West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, 1996. Print.


Clemmitt, Marcia. "Animal Rights." CQ Researcher 20.1 (2010): 1-24. CQ Researcher. Web. 8 Feb. 2010. .


Shanks, Niall, Ray Greek and Jane Greek. "Are Animal models Predictive for Humans?" Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. 4:2, 2009. Web. 7 Feb 2010.