In modern society, animal exploitation has received a great deal of media attention. Many arguments have been made for and against this issue. In this essay, I will discuss both views and state my own position.
Opponents of animal abuse - sometimes called “animal right activists” - claim that animal in both food production and research activities have to suffer severe pain or even be killed since these activities require a wide range of chemical substances used for these animals. Moreover, a majority of livestock is beaten during food production activities, which is against moral values. For example, cows raised on farm have to endure terrifying, painful, and cruel procedure to make dairy products. Furthermore, these kinds of food are not essential as there are more alternatives which supplies more nutrients than animal meat; for example nuts, mushrooms, and beans.
Meanwhile, those who support the expansion of animal exploitation claim that animals used for research activities may be greatly beneficial for human beings. To be more specific, scientists could find new vaccines and drugs preventing terrible diseases by doing research on animals. This means that doctor have more chance to cure more patients who are severely ill, which could improve public health. In fact, scientists in the USA have explored a new vaccine for cancer treatment after testing on rabbits. Animal exploitation proponents also claim that the improvement of public health means that there is less burden to society.
In conclusion, while there are convincing arguments on both sides of the debate, I would argue that human uses of animal are necessary. It is not realistic for people to find alternatives for these activities.
In modern society,
animal
exploitation has received a great deal of media attention.
Many
arguments have
been made
for and against this issue. In this essay, I will discuss both views and state my
own
position.
Opponents of
animal
abuse
-
sometimes
called
“animal
right activists”
-
claim that
animal
in both food production and research
activities
have to
suffer severe pain or even
be killed
since these
activities
require a wide range of chemical substances
used
for these
animals
.
Moreover
, a majority of livestock
is beaten
during food production
activities
, which is against moral values.
For example
, cows raised on farm
have to
endure terrifying, painful, and cruel procedure to
make
dairy products.
Furthermore
, these kinds of food are not essential as there are more alternatives which supplies more nutrients than
animal
meat;
for example
nuts, mushrooms, and beans.
Meanwhile, those who support the expansion of
animal
exploitation claim that
animals
used
for research
activities
may be
greatly
beneficial for human beings. To be more specific, scientists could find new vaccines and drugs preventing terrible diseases by doing research on
animals
. This means that doctor have more chance to cure more patients who are
severely
ill, which could
improve
public health. In fact, scientists in the USA have explored a new vaccine for cancer treatment after testing on rabbits.
Animal
exploitation proponents
also
claim that the improvement of public health means that there is less burden to society.
In conclusion
, while there are convincing arguments on both sides of the debate, I would argue that human
uses
of
animal
are necessary. It is not realistic for
people
to find alternatives for these
activities
.