Pets Are Family Members Too Sociology Essay

Almost every household lives with pets like dogs, cats and others. These pets are treated in a way like they are family members. Although people living with pets are offering great care to them, they are the same individuals inflicting pain and suffering on other animals. Billions of animals have had to content with unavoidable cruelty from the same persons who are supposed to protect them. Animals are equally treated as friends as well as enemies. They are domesticated as pets, however if the keeper finds it fit, they are slaughtered.

Do animals really have rights? If so, are these rights similar to those of human beings? These are kind of questions which continue to puzzle human beings. In their endeavor to improve living standards either health wise or psychologically, man must interact with animals in at least one way. Historical evidence depicts that animals divine living things with equal or even better status morally than human beings. Such traditional beliefs were backed by religious and cultural tenets which regarded animals with some dignity. Despite this old perception of animals human beings have continued to view them as creatures to be overruled, owned and used (Regan, 67).

Current controversies about animal rights are solidly based on heartless ways through which men across the world interact with animals. Agricultural practices which put animals’ in jeopardy, too much consumption of meat products and use of animals in uncertain experiments are perfect examples of human activities which contravene free existence of animals. It is ideally expected that animals should be left to stay in their natural habitats without interference from man. Any form of confinement and abuse of animals through entertainments deprive them of their freedom.

Nevertheless, despite such happenings of undesirable interaction of animals with human beings, mitigation measures are continually reviewed to help in reducing adverse effects. Exercising responsible and sustainable practices are acts of stewardship in which human realizes the need of living in balance with fellow creatures. Many abuses are offset by such acts of stewardship and advocacy of protection and respect towards animals. Accepting animals as equal members of moral community is a philosophical stand taken by UNESCO. This accord has been vital in explaining the status of animals as property, their welfare and interests (McMillan 147). In addition, the duty of man towards animals’ wellness is also stipulated in the declaration.

A number of questions have been asked about how ethically justified it is to use animals in experimental research activities which are meant to benefit human beings. Cosmetic industries are common violators of animal rights through this means. Helpless animals are suffering daily because human beings want to become more beautiful. Operations which alter genetic structure of animals seem to violate the rights of animals because they comprise changing of animals for ultimate benefit of man in a way which portray animals as mere human property. This is in contrary the desired treatment of animals as beings with their own value and dignity. Even if the animals are used in research for the sake of improving their lives, it is implicit that the subject animal will suffer some pain or restrain while being used as a sample in laboratories.

A number of concerns have been raised over morality and ethicality of cloning technology. Although the technology is still in its formative stages, the society at large as well as animal rights advocates are contemplating acceptability of specific areas like Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. Projections show that this technology may bring tremendous positive changes in ways of life (Silberman, 162). However, activists fear the fact that this technology may be misused in a way that restricts animal rights.

As much as it might be argued that Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer Technology is only unethical for use in human beings, the same is equally unfit for animal rights. Animal rights activists have a valid school of thought in their vehement argument against cloning. This document attempts to explore underlying research based facts and finding surrounding this sensitive topic of cellular biology.

Theoretical framework

Scientists have always received fierce criticism from ethics and religious advocates. Animal rights activists in religious perspective are very much concerned with the role of researcher in “playing at God”. Nevertheless human beings have always transformed the nature to suit their needs. As a matter of fact, interference with animals’ freedom is an old concept dating up to 5000 years ago. It is evident that improved productivity among animal farms is directly attributed to researches and selective breeding aimed at developing more productive and hardy species. Another optimistic approach towards genetic manipulation technology is the review of mileage attained in medicine. Life expectancy is on the rise in a number of regions in the world due to use on animals as test tools. Therefore, there are no reasons to suddenly stop animals based research suddenly on what is rather progress in improving humanity.

Animal rights activists have had notable milestone in the past century with various governments using legislation to suitably formulate and alter laws touching on animals’ rights. For example, United States federal government has articulate laws governing the use of animals in laboratories. Outstanding provision of this legislation is the rights of animals used in laboratory to be free from suffering and pain. It also stipulates mechanism of alleviating suffering resulting from laboratory operations (Lacroix, 22).

To sum it up, animal rights explore ways of introducing moral notion about people to animals’ welfare. It may not be possible to achieve absolute similarities because there are limiting cases such as impossibility to seek animals consent before treatment procedure is executed. In addition, animal rights involve entrenching basic protection for important features of animals’ nature into legislation.

Cruelty towards animals can be looked at in two distinct perspectives. First is failure to take care of animals within ones custody. By accepting to take custody of any animal either as a pet or other use is taken to mean that the owner is liable for any mistreatment and abuse of animals. Relationship between man and animals has improved over time. Domestication of animals is as old as humanity itself. The nature offers a way of taking care of its in habitats. It is evident in ecological studies that animals can survive comfortably without the influence of man. It can thus be argued that taking animals away from their natural home is only justifiable if the taker is going to offer better services or at least the same as nature. Taking care of animals is a complex issue going beyond food supply and health care (Suen 18). Neglecting them is described by failure to supply correct food, water, housing and veterinary care. Animals who succumb to adverse effects of neglect experience the same suffering as those who are harmed by intention. This is so because prolonged suffering is equally bad as purposed harm. Researchers in animals psychology shows that some are emotionally sensitive. Therefore, man activities which affect animals emotionally must be carefully executed to avoid injuring them emotionally (De Haan, 150).

Secondly, animals’ cruelty can as well be viewed as deliberately harming them. Some people who are mentally unstable may decide to relieve their anger in hurting or even killing the animals. Stabbing, shooting or hitting helpless animals because they are seen as unequal is one rude form of inhumane act. Although animals cannot be directly compared to human beings, nor do they enjoy similar privileges, they are entitled to fair treatment.

An outstanding example of animals’ abuse is using them for transport. Donkeys which are normally referred to as “beasts of burden” suffer greatly in the hands of senseless people across the world. Using them for transport should be carefully monitored so as to avoid over loading them.

Keeping animals for the sake of food is a major source of cruelty towards them. Ideally, it is a natural way of balancing ecosystem to slaughter them for food. Overdependence on this source of food contributes immensely to violation of animals rights. The process of slaughtering them has been in application for a long time. Different cultures all over the world have had clearly formulated processes of doing so. It is intended at reducing pain among the animals being killed for food. Killing animals for food should appear as the remaining option having exploited all other sources of food. It is in deed an inevitable procedure calling for humane ways of execution. If there is a way of terminating their lives in the quickest pain-free way possible, it would look better to the animal victims.

Conclusion

To conclude, maximum animals comfort has not been achieved yet. Efforts should be continually stepped up to not only protect them from man’s brutality but also to make them comfortable. Major milestones realized by animal rights activists should be maintained so as to make the realized milestones relevant. On the side of research which is the highest contributor of animal cruelty requires close monitoring and evaluation. Pain inflicted on animals in laboratories must be absolutely necessary, however it should not occur. On the case where laboratory procedures are absolutely necessary, researchers must have in place mitigation measures to curb adverse effects of test drugs among the many disadvantages.