Herzog Human Morality

Humans, today, conflict with the problem of how humane it is to test and murder animals such as mice and worms. Despite having a viewpoint in “the troubled middle”, Harold Herzog discusses the moral line drawn from the killing of different species in his article, “Human Morality and Animal Research.” He looks over the moral obligations and historical context resulted from the murder of worms to mice to kittens to humans. Herzog discusses patterns between the human morality and situational error when faced with a problem of animal cruelty and research. Some may see us humans as the most powerful race, and as Herzog states it, “Research with animals is based on the premise that a ‘superior’ species has the right to breed, kidnap, or kill members …show more content…
While he is yet to stand on a true viewpoint on this subject, Herzog explains how there can always be an underlying paradox to each situation. When he is exploring how ironic and contradictive animal activists can be, he uses the example of how many activists own pets. For example, a vegetarian or vegan can boycott the consumption of meat, but to feed her loving cat, Whiskers, she must let her partake in the very meat that she was fighting. Cats are carnivores, and it is very unlikely to convert a cat to veganism. There is also the controversy of even keeping animals such as these as pets. For many activists, it is hard to understand how inhumane it is to keep some animals as pets. “Animals,” as one activist says it, “are not here for our happiness.” While there is a substantial difference in how we raise animals (within terms of stray, wild, and domestic animals), there is no say in the animals life on how they should be treated. Finally, he seems to indirectly state some of the obvious logic that we are superior and it is only the way of life that we eat meat and research on animals to make life a little easier. It is possible that we can cure cancer or find a way to stop infestations, or even cause breeding to increase, which could increase the amount food …show more content…
Abortion is the termination of a fetus within the womb. This is often used as an escape route when pregnancy for mothers cannot be a liable option. Our author is comparing the problem of, “How could animal activists possibly be pro-choice when they are for the lives of animals? Aren’t humans animals?” However, it seems illogical to compare a human life to an animal life. When our author explains that you cannot generalize mice from men, he sticks himself in a medium where we, like most of life’s mysteries, are unable to determine the role and significance of a problem. When an animal activist states that he is only pro-life because he is an animal activist, he does not know what termination and benefits it brings to each species. Mothers abort the fetus long before they can fully perceive a concept of living and pain. This benefits the mother in a safe, professional manner, and allows emotional and mental stability to remain. However, by being an animal activist, you are merely fighting for animals to remain alive. Animals who are not subject for human benefit are allowed to return to their environment, where they have been for the beginning of time. In some ways, allowing animals to live benefits the animal and allows the natural flow of earth to continue; however, by allowing a human to be born, it can be said that it would cause emotional stress. Animals are not here for our benefit, just as women are not here to give birth to a child. However, in the