prof.goodman

For kathy

1.When making these kinds of decisions (how to act and consequences) we may not consider how that decision may affect how we view simple everyday items. Moreover, we should ponder how it affects these things, not for the objects benefit, but because of the manner that shaping them may influence other aware beings. This signifies that people do not think about these items morally. This is because people do not endure happiness, to execute no harm or good to these objects. Morality should not be a question of should or should not choosing the ethical fork (in the road). However, the thought of harming an animal would be considered immoral to an animal rights activists or even an animal lover, whereas, a hunter may find that morally wrong. I believe we all need to be governed by ethics, values and morality.

for adrian

2.If a disease has a cure or we have any chance of finding a cure and experimenting on animals is how it must be done, then of course, moral consideration should not be given to animals. The alternative is to begin testing on humans and that is unconscionable. In this case, animal life is not equal to human life. The difference is intent. Torturing animals for fun or pleasure or out of a sense of cruelty is something that needs to be checked in order to make sure a person is not a homicidal manias. Testing on animals to see the effects of a potential drug that could better mankind is a whole different animal altogether. The intent should never be exclusively and merely to harm.