>Daily Evergreen. 4 March 2008.
>
>Humans inherently owe animals. Massive meat recall reminds
>us of the dangers of relegating other creatures to food status.
>
>Nickolas Conrad
>
>During the past month, the U.S. has been undergoing the
>nations largest recall of meat. The U.S. Department of
>Agriculture recalled 143 million pounds last week alone,
>according to CNN.
>
>Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. was secretly investigated for six
>weeks due to a video supplied by animal rights activists
>working for the Humane Society of the United States. The video
>showed footage of sick, crippled cows being kicked, shoved,
>jabbed in the eyes and shocked to force them into the
>slaughterhouse.
>
>While some are upset about the inhumane treatment of the sick
>animals, most people are outraged by the potentially
>contaminated beef.
>
>As an animal rights activist, I feel this represents another
>way human society continues to commit atrocities against other
>sentient creatures. While humans demand fair treatment for
>animals, most people are not willing to expand their
>compassion for the lives of other sentient creatures
>emotional and psychological well-being.
>
>Since we are one animal among others who share a common
>descent, nervous system, similar emotional capacities and a
>biological brain, it is evident other animals are ruthlessly
>exploited. If we claim to be a moral animal who is able to
>differentiate between right and wrong, based on the suffering
>we cause others, we are morally obligated to consider our
>exploitation of creatures who also fight for their lives and
>continued existence.
>
>Because other animals are unable to communicate and conceive
>of themselves collectively, they cannot tell us to stop
>killing them. They are the silent victims whose voices can
>never be heard. And because they cannot protest our
>exploitation of them, we excuse our behavior as a process of
>nature.
>
>Yet, if we are moral animals, we are obligated to take notice
>of the harm and suffering we cause other beings. As perhaps
>the only animal who is truly able to expand its moral horizon
>beyond itself, and who now dominates and controls the features
>and state of the world, it is unethical to ignore our
>obligations to other creatures who are subject to our mercy
>and care.
>
>The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk, but,
>Can they suffer? Jeremy Bentham wrote, forming the foundation
>for his ethical philosophy in the 1700s.
>
>We are not alone on this planet, nor are we gods to these
>creatures who have shared it before we came into existence.
>But sadly, due to our population growth, environmental impact
>and technological understanding, their lives are in our hands.
>
>We are guilty of speciesism, which is a prejudice or
>attitude of bias in favor of the interests of the members of
>ones own species and against those of members of other
>species, Peter Singer wrote in his book Animal Liberation.
>
>I know many people who love their pets, recognize their
>emotional states and intelligence, but still support the
>slaughter and consumption of nonhuman meat. Because they are
>aware of their complicated biological and emotional lives, dog
>and cat lovers would never consume their pets - even if they
>were factory-farmed and cheaply available.
>
>Yet, if animals are not cute, furry and domesticated, it is
>acceptable to farm, kill and eat them. Our moral consideration
>should not stop merely at our level of familiarity.
>
>The massive meat recall gives us a moment to reflect on our
>treatment of other animals. As a civilization we need to
>expand our moral compass to include other animals that have
>interests of their own, pursue their own emotional desires and
>are able to suffer just as greatly as ourselves.
>
>
http://www.dailyevergreen.com/story/24964
>
here here.