This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: In this essay, I will use the term animal to refer to non-human animals. Animals have incurred so it might make sense to say that they have right in so far as we can have duties towards them. However, even if animals dont have rights, it still seems like animal have implication to morality and that is morally preferable to help animals rather than hurt them. The value of animals seems intuitive given utilitarianism because they can be happy and suffer similar to people. If we are supposed to maximize happiness, then why shouldnt the happiness of animals be part of our moral concern? Shaws discussed the relevant of business ethics in animals in so far as: a) We do animal testing b) Raise and kill animal for food c) We should consider animal ownership d) Animal abuse e) The effects of environmental destruction on animals We tend to assume that we are more important than non-human animal and is better to test on animals rather than humans because is disrespectful and harmful to treat people as genuine pig. However, animal testing is only morally oriented when a) It doesnt harm the animal b) We have no choice but to test on either animal or human Peter Singer argues that animal testing is often unjustified and causes needless harm to animal....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 11/07/2011 for the course MKT 305 taught by Professor Lee during the Spring '11 term at United International University.
- Spring '11