When it comes to family, many consider their pets to be part of it. Some even go so far as to create accounts on their pets' social media with their last name included. However, when it comes to other animals, such as rats and chickens, the same family members would likely find it acceptable to subject them to medical testing or slaughtering them in order to eat them for dinner, whereas they are not that different. to those they consider family – they are all animals, just as “Animals Like Us” author Hal Herzog stated in his article that “[he] opposes toxicity testing of cleaner for oven and eyeshadow on animals, but [he] would sacrifice a lot of mice to find a cure for cancer” (247). “Animals Like Us” discusses the conflicting and often conflicting views that individuals tend to have when it comes to animal ethics. There are common moral complexities when it comes to deciding whether or not it is acceptable to kill another species for the benefit of humans. Although there may be varying degrees to consider, when deciding how to approach and treat animals, people must recognize the animals' sentience, their ability to reproduce, and their hierarchical level. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay One of the many similarities between humans and animals is their ability to feel emotions and pain; however, it is a quality that also varies among different types of animals. Dogs and cats are known to show affection towards their owners (some even consider dogs to be man's best friend) and, in many cases, help their owners emotionally by comforting them during times of stress. . On the other hand, dogs and cats are also known to display personal emotions, such as depression and happiness, when certain situations in their personal lives occur. Through the clear display of positive and negative emotions, humans considered it inhumane to slaughter and/or test a common pet. However, just because dogs and cats tend to be better at demonstrating their sense of emotion doesn't mean other animals considered food, like fish and cows, don't also experience these feelings. Animals such as fish have been proven to possess emotional abilities; However, different types of animals can have and demonstrate affection to varying degrees and with a lesser sense of awareness and understanding of situations. For example, although it is generally undesirable to observe a lobster being boiled alive in order to provide food for humans, it does not go through the painful mental process that many people believe. Due to this low level of consciousness, the lobster is only able to sense the high temperature of the boiling water, but does not understand that a human has trapped it in there and that it needs to get out. Due to low levels of expression and awareness, it is emotionally easier for humans to cook a lobster than for a common pet who would understand the dangerous situation they are in. Herzog explains in his article "Animals Like Us" how Judith Black, a vegetarian and holder of a doctorate in anthropology, did not consider fish to be animals, and therefore acceptable to eat. "They just didn't seem like the right thing to him.animals. So for the next fifteen years, this intuitive biological classification system allowed Judith to consider herself a vegetarian, while continuing to enjoy the joys of Copper River smoked salmon and lemon-grilled swordfish” (242). . Herzog demonstrates this kind of contradictory view in his article when he states that animals with "huge brains and big hearts" (247) tend to be the ones who receive real care from animals. individuals, rather than using them for food. and medical services. When it comes to ethics, it is fairer to use an animal that has little sentience compared to most other animals. Feel less emotional pain than those who are self-aware and express their emotions in a manner continuous and clear. In addition to an animal's ability to demonstrate emotion, its physical ability to reproduce can have an effect on the choice of which animals to feed. humans and help them succeed in medical research. Humans are among the slowest at creating offspring. While it takes twenty-one days for a rat to give birth to eight to twelve other rats, it takes thirteen times longer for a human to give birth to a single child, creating a different sense of worth between species. When deciding whether it is ethical to choose a certain animal for an experiment or nutrients for humans, their population, survival rate, and ability to reproduce should be considered as a determining factor. A species that is at risk of extinction should not be considered for any type of process that could further endanger the animals. If an animal, such as rats or fish, which reproduces abundant offspring at once and in a short time, proves to be of beneficial use to the human race, and can do so without pain, with slight discomfort, minor pain and short duration. , and/or humanly, its use should be morally acceptable – although not pleasant. By determining which animals could be used by humans in this way, the loss of one animal could be replaced by an abundant supply of others of its species rather than deteriorating it and creating a critical and major loss. For example, without considering all emotional and moral attachments, if a human life were lost in an experiment, not only would it result in a major loss of the benefits that society has obtained from that unique individual – such as a job – but it would would take some time. a minimum of nine months for this person to be replaced — if possible. Additionally, animals such as rats all serve the same purpose for society and can easily be replaced by another rat due to the overabundance of offspring from the same parents and the short time it takes to create more. Therefore, the more an animal is capable of reproducing and the further it is from becoming an endangered species, the more morally acceptable it should be considered to be of beneficial use, provided that all measures taken to obtain profits are made in a humane manner. When it comes to species values, humans are considered to be at the top of the species hierarchy pyramid. The Greek philosopher Aristotle believed that plants were at the bottom of the hierarchy and humans were at the top, while animals were in the middle. Due to humans' superior intelligence and functions compared to other species, they are at the top and consider it essential to keep the human race sustainable and to use every morally acceptable resource possible to benefit and.