Michael Vick may enjoy watching dogs fight. Someone else may find that repulsive but see nothing wrong with eating an animal who has had a life as full of pain and suffering as the lives of the fighting dogs. It’s strange that we regard the latter as morally different from, and superior to, the former.
We do not need to eat animals, wear animals, or use animals for entertainment purposes, and our only defense of these uses is our pleasure, amusement, and convenience.
Most of the time, those who use animals in experiments justify that use by pointing to alleged benefits to human and animal health and the supposed necessity of using animals to obtain those benefits.
Because animals are property, we consider as ‘humane treatment’ that we would regard as torture if it were inflicted on humans.
We eat animals because they taste good. And if that’s O.K., what’s wrong with wearing fur? We need as a society to think seriously about our institutionalized animal use.
The proposition that humans have mental characteristics wholly absent in non-humans is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.