Over the centuries animals have played a very important role in human evolution, providing sustenance, companionship, and even transportation to name just a few. Many cultures relied on animals in order to survive, while others chose to worship them, believing that they somehow possessed spiritual powers from beyond. Even now with the advent of machines, animals still have a place in our hearts and homes, which is why there is a need for ethics in regards to the treatment of animals. What now has to be considered is; where to the draw the line, and who determines what is ethical behavior? Sure, we have several laws that protect the welfare of animals, preventing them from being subjected to practices that are deemed cruel and inhumane. There are even organizations that have dedicated themselves to ensuring animals are given fair and ethical treatment.
Unfortunately this is not always as simple as one would think. The problem is; there is always a debate over who is right, and what is considered ethical or not. On one hand we have the extremists who believe animals deserve to be treated equally, purporting that they shouldn't be considered possessions, meaning they are equals among humans. On the other side; animals are viewed as objects that were left here to serve man in just about anyway they seen fit. Animal fighting, mass production, and unethical mass slaughter is pretty much acceptable behavior.
Personally I think all life serves a purpose, and regardless of how basic our role is; we still deserve the right to serve it without being subjected to suffering or cruelty. This is where the government steps in and says it's
alright to use animals for food, clothing entertainment or in the name of science; so long as it doesn't breach ethical and fair treatment. Meaning animals still have a function in our society, but are at least given the respect for the sacrifice they endure. Now this brings us back to the "E"-word, which employs the foundation of principle and morality, adhering to the conduct that an individual displays. Welfare implies that we need to be fair, and that our concern is for the well being of all non-humans alike. Does that mean the act of eating an animal is unfair to the animal's welfare. According to our current structure it is OK, so long as the animal is not subjected to unfair or cruel treatment during the process.
I would like to consider myself an advocate that has strong ethics towards the welfare of all animals, and I can't think of anything more contemptible than anyone who causes the suffering or unnecessary destruction of any life. Yes, food is a necessity, but that doesn't give us the right to exploit an animal's rights, especially if it's just so we can boost our productivity and profit. The subject of clothing is another precarious topic, since there's a plethora of other material resources that doesn't employ animal hide. I think we all could learn a lesson from our Native ancestors, who believed it was important not to waste any part of an animal out of respect for their sacrifice. Why can't we still abide by the same code that governed the land not so long ago, instead of harvesting them for things like fur and ivory?
Thankfully there are many who are finally fighting for the rights of all living beings. Stating all creatures large or small, deserve to be exposed to a hospitable and worthwhile existence, no mater how low on the food chain they may be. Puppy mills, poaching, scientific exploitation, and skinning to name a few are examples that can't coexist with terms like "ethics or welfare". It actually wasn't until men like Richard Martin stepped forth, declaring it was necessary to create laws that protect animals from cruel and inhumane treatment. Known also as "Humanity Dick", Richard not only passed one of the first animal Rights Bill, but he also went on to be the founder of one of the world's first organizations dedicated to ensuring that ethics existed to protect the welfare of all animals both commercially and domestic.
Should we eat animals or not? According to most scholars, humans and animal share the same desire to survive, and there are very few beasts that don't feed upon each other. Cats will always hunt for mice and wolves will always prey on mice. So man, no mater how domesticated would still feed, although we do have the luxury of being intelligent enough to have a choice of what to eat. Personally I will be the first to admit I eat just about anything, but I do also pay particular attention to the production methods of companies I put on my plate. If I want a pet I visit the humane society, bypassing the puppy in the window that probably knows nothing about cruelty or abandonment. I never hunt for pleasure, just so I can strap a set of antlers over my fireplace.
Discipline can be firm, but it also cannot overstep the threshold of unnecessary suffering. Yeah, as a child I pulled my cat's tail, and chased him from one end of the house to the other, but no matter what, he still loved me unconditionally and he was forever tangled at my ankles. Why would I coddle and love my cat, but not give a damn whether the beef on my plate came from an animal that was boxed up until he was big enough to be slaughtered? Ethically the answer is clear; nobody has the right to abuse another life.
Another issue stems from the subject of population control, which can be necessary in order to perpetuate an ecological balance, but unnecessary mass production is crossing the line of ethical behavior. The
RSPCA, Humane Society, Animal Liberation, and the SPCA are only but a few of the voices that speak on behalf of the animals that can't speak out for themselves. I think we all should be morally and legally held responsible for our actions, and that not only animals, but also all living things deserve to be treated with respect and fairness!