The Victims of the Economic Developing

       In India, hundreds and thousands of children, women and the people in lower class have become the victims of the progression of industrialization, modernization and economic growth. Although the government passed the laws and advocated that it will always protect human rights rather than only focus on the thriving of the business, they still potentially threaten the basic human dignity and rights in order to get more benefits. The recent laws, published by Prime minster Narendra Modi’s government, seems to stimulate the economic growth, but in fact, it takes away basic protections of some vulnerable people. 

According to the data, in Andhra Pradesh, nearly 400000 children, mostly girls at the age of seven to fourteen, worked more than 15 hours a day in cottonseed production across the country. This phenomenon is caused by poverty, lack of security and  the increasing gap between the rich and the poor. These abused children are often forced to work without food and very low wage. They have no chance to get the education and be a happy and healthy citizen to seek their unique lives. Many of the girls are denied the access to the education. Some of them are forced to work in the factories when they are very young, and some of them have to accept trafficking because of poverty. 

I am, of course, against the child labor and human trafficking. The children’s basic human rights, including education, personal safety and rights to have a wonderful childhood and growing condition, are deprived by the government, which only using people as a tool for its economic growth. The government should find a more healthy way to develop and thrive their economy instead of relying on this inhumane and degraded method. Children are the future of one society. They are vulnerable, so they need more cares and protections from the families and the government. Also, the human trafficking also break so many girls’ wonderful dreams about their futures. Some girls, even at my age, need to get the burden from the society. They have no chance to feel the beauty of the world, but abused by the “developing world”. Therefore, I believe that the government should definitely stand out to protect its people from hurting, and find the ways to forbid the child labor and human trafficking. 

The Ethics of Marriage and Religion

In the United States, on June 26, 2015, SCOTUS an act for marriage equality across all 50 states was passed by the Supreme Court. This act gave same-sex couple the legal benefits and status of a male-female partnership. This not only shows the progress in changing homophobia in our nation but also allows people to make decisions for their long-term partners medically, receive tax benefits and a slight change in social stigma against same-sex partners being married. Yet, in multiple states and across the country there are folks who did not celebrate the fact that two people in love could make their marriage and commitment legal. For example in Kentucky a courthouse clerk refused to hand out marriage licenses to same-sex couples, her name is Kim Davis. She was arrested but gained many religious supporters like herself who interpret their religion as one that condemns sexual relationships between same-sex couples. This is the dilemma that the US is facing today; do we enforce the law to protect LGBTQ+ couples or do we bend the rule to allow for the religious freedom that the country was built on. To me the protection of these couples in more important than the protection of the religious extremists. I say this for multiple reasons including the fact that Christianity is one of the most culturally accepted religions and prominent. There are legal holidays centered on Christian religious celebrations, yet Jewish or  days are ignored. This is why I feel that the Christians who support Kim Davis should lose this battle of ethics. They have won so many already and have become the dominant power in our political and social debates -- it is time for a change in power. 

Degrading animals through Industrial Farming

I believe that one of the biggest ethical issues in the world today is industrial farming. This issue has been growing along with our population, simply because more people want more food, quicker. Industrial farming turns the lives of living breathing animals into simply some cog in a larger machine to get humans their food at an unnatural speed. These animals are injected with chemicals to make them grow faster and larger than how they are evolutionarily designed to grow. They are crowded into tiny spaces, with thousands of other animals, that are infested with disease. They have so little space that the animals develop sores and break bones from being in constant contact with each other. The animal’s quality of life is one of the lowest known in all of the world's history, which is definitely saying something with the amount of horrible things that have happened in this world. The first time i realized all of this was after watching Food Inc. for the first time, which is a very educational and eye opening movie that exposes the lives of livestock in the industrial farming industry. It shows the absolute atrocities that happen to these animals, as if they can’t feel when their beaks are cut off or when they are shot in the head and strung up by their leg without actually being dead. In a way the animals are being dehumanized, even though they are not human, simply because they are being treated like nothing more than a piece of meat when they are actually living beings. Unfortunately this is a very difficult ethical issue to overcome, mainly because the human population is still increasing and humans do need food to survive. Humans have become so dependent on this system that it seems almost impossible to change our ways, because it seems that without something so efficient and effective, how can we feed all the people we are feeding now, let alone how can we end world hunger. In my opinion, home farming is one of the best methods to move away from the cruelness of industrial farming and into a world of compassion and doing good. This would not only allow people to become self sufficient and less dependent on large corporations, but also it would insure the better treatment of livestock animals.

Live or not: A right or a wrong?

For me, “suicide” is a term full of desperation and misery, and it is an issue which stimulates debates around the society for causing too many negative effects. 

Sometimes, people bring themselves to the margin of lives and suicide because they could not sustain to live any longer, both physically and mentally. Therefore, from my points of view, suicide is not necessarily unethical. At first glance, It is not difficult to think about several reasons that lead people to commit suicide: mental distress, physical illness and even religious belief. On the one hand, suicide could be considered merely “self-killing”, an action which is completely personal. For some people whose illnesses deprive life of its meaning, they do not see the point to continue to live for that their lives have been faded away as they lost the ability to enjoy the living moments. In such case, suicide serves a means for people to free themselves from torments and limitations; for others, like Adolf Hitler who killed himself in order to avoid the humiliation of execution, suicide is a behavior that impulses people to offset the mistakes they have been made at great cost. On the other hand, however, suicide could also be distinguished as “self-sacrificing”, an action which is based on the lives of others. In certain circumstances, take world war and civil war as examples, people who hold strong belief and motivation have to sacrifice their lives to strive for what they value. In such case, people ended their lives voluntarily for their communities in a moral way. Overall, although mostly believed as the representative of pessimistic, suicide sometimes could be ethical or even necessary when people think it could bring them the best results. 

The right to choose

On a car ride to Tahoe, when I was around thirteen-years-old, my mom read me an article about a doctor who lost his job because he performed an emergency abortion for a woman whose life depended on the procedure. The woman was not upset as it had saved her life and the likelihood of her child's survival was minimal, but thousands of others were outraged that the doctor had murdered this child. The issue of abortion has resurfaced in the media again and again. It has been tackled from religious perspectives, medical perspectives, economic perspectives,... The decision of the availability of this option for women lies in the hands of male dominated legislative bodies, but is it not the mother's decision? "A Sep. 2005 survey in the peer-reviewed Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health asking women why they had an abortion found that 73% of respondents said they could not afford to have a baby, and 38% said giving birth would interfere with their education and career goals."* No one understands the situation that a woman is in and the life that she can offer her child better than herself. So why should a group of men who have never had to face the high mortality rates of giving birth, the possibility of raising one's rapist's child, the heartbreak of dropping out of high school and not being the first woman in one's family to attend college, and the fear of bringing a child into a life in a rundown apartment, with an abusive husband, and surviving off of food stamps make the decisions about a woman's body. If one does not believe in helping the child grow up by supporting affordable healthcare, education, housing, and food for all, then is one really pro-life? It is true that the decision to abort a child should not be taken lightly, but it should be an option for everyone. If a woman believes that aborting her child is against her religion, then she should be able to continue her pregnancy. If a woman feels unprepared in any way to give a life to the fetus, then she should be able to terminate her pregnancy. In a world churning with diverse cultures and belief systems, we must be respectful of each other by allowing freedom of choice while preventing chaos through universal agreements.

*http://abortion.procon.org

Captivity of Animals for Human Entertainment

The ethical issue I decided to research, I knew I already had an opinion on. However, I wanted to look into this topic a lot closer and analyze both sides before taking a final opinion. I have researched the ethical issue of animal capture and containment for human enjoyment and entertainment. This included zoos, sea world, and circuses.

Often when researching this topic and the pros to this, the argument for keeping animal entertainers was that animals are not harmed in these processes and have lived prosperous lives in captivity. However, I already knew that this was false at least at sea world. In fact, whales at sea world live only up to 30 years whereas whales in the wild can live up to 100 years. After further research, I realized that it was the same for animals zoos, rodeos and circuses. In Zoos and Circuses, elephants can live up to maybe 35 years at best. In the wild however, elephants can live up to 60 years! The short age range in captivity is due to cruel practices and poor diets.

This issue is controversial because it argues the difference of importance between humans and animals. As humans, we have the tendency to be overconfident and believe that our race is more intelligent and therefor superior to all other races. Parading around monkeys in suits or elephants in a small ring, can be considered pleasurable to some people and therefor is often ruled as an okay practice.

It is clear that animals are harmed in these practices and are not given the same opportunities for life as they would in the wild. Because of this, I cannot support these practices and have to decided to take a firm negative stance on these practices of animal captivity.

The Notorious Use of Child Soldiers

      Thousands of children are serving as soldiers in armed conflicts around the world. These boys and girls, some as young as 8 years old, serve in government forces and armed opposition groups. They may fight on the front lines, participate in suicide missions, and act as spies, messengers, or lookouts. Girls may be forced into sexual slavery. Many are abducted or recruited by force, while others join out of desperation, believing that armed groups offer their best chance for survival. 

      In 14 countries around the world, according to the United Nations, children are recruited and used in armed conflicts as informants, guards, porters, cooks, and often, as front-line armed combatants. In Yemen, where UNICEF has estimated that one-third of all fighters are under 18, all sides to the ongoing conflict, including the government, use child soldiers. The numbers are devastating.

      I am absolutely against the military use of children. These child soldiers are exploited of their basic human rights, including education, safety, and even survival. The armed forces who adopt child soldiers are committing a huge crime against humanity. Children are particularly vulnerable to recruitment if they are poor, separated from their families, displaced from their homes, living in a combat zone or have limited access to education. As we always say, children are the future of human beings. However, if we cannot protect our children from exploitation, where will our future lie? What’s more important is the aftermath of a war. Once a conflict ends, child soldiers should have just as much right as adults to be reintegrated into communities. Society owes them a chance to contribute to peaceful transition and build their lives. 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/28/us-must-get-tough-over-child-soldiers

One-child policy and its consequence

One-child policy in China is used to limited the population in China. Although, it plays an important role in preventing the population increased rapidly, it also brings a lot of negative impact. Because of the developing of the medical, people have been longevity than before. Therefore, the older generation is a large part of population. However, the policy only limited the population of younger generation, so that as the younger generation become less and less, a lot of job opportunities required healthy young people cannot be fulfilled. Due to the lack of young generation, many fields are still keeping the convention idea, so the adventurous thinking of younger generation is needed by the society. Although there is always a reason that the traditional thinking existed for such long time, people still need to have some changes base on the traditional thinking in order to make a better thinking. As the time goes by, people need to more progress. This progress is brought by the younger generation who has their own point of view which could bring huge difference to this world. However, the birth control only limited the population of new born instead of the older generation which brings unbalanced between younger generation and older generation. Also because of the gender role of the society, people always valued boys more than girl. Due to the one-child policy, many family are more willing to have a boy instead of a girl. Through many way, they achieved their willing. But their action led to the unbalance of gender in Chinese society. Many man will not have their life partner when they should marry. As the women population decreased, the birth rate are also decreased, which are falling into a cycle that the older generation became more and more, and the serious consequences of it. Therefore, although the one-child policy prevent the population from growth rapid, it still brings a serious of consequence that have a huge impact in society.

Death or Love?

       According to LIFENEWS, this summer, a doctor killed a healthy 24-year-old woman in Euthanasia since the woman thought of suicide since she was a kid. The woman was called Laura who felt that she wanted to die ever since childhood. Laura (24): “Life, that’s not for me”. She suffered from inner conflict, depression and self-destruction. The woman terminated her life with Euthanasia. Euthanasia can be defined as “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma” by Oxford Dictionaries.

       Laura’s death makes me think about euthanasia in a different way. Should euthanasia be allowed to use simply when the patient wants to do so? In the news, Laura was actually very healthy physiologically. She had good friends, affable parents, and many hobbies. However, just because she thought the only acceptable treatment to her psychological disorder was death, then the psychiatrist agreed to relieve her by using euthanasia. Is that really right? Her disorder might be treatable if the psychiatrists persisted in treating her with various therapies. Should doctors agree to let their patients die when their patients wanted to die voluntarily while there are actually some other ways to avoid their deaths? In my opinion, I think we should think about this question with full consideration because all human beings are connected somehow. Even though some people will argue that everyone possesses right to die in dignity and without pain, and should allow others to help them do so if they cannot manage it on their own. Nevertheless, in most cases, it is not that simple! Take Laura as an example, she had parents who loved her so much, and she had friends who cared for her. She should really take great consideration of her parents, of her friends, of anyone who loved her. Death is complicated and influential! Love is always there to overcome death! Maybe love in my opinion is ideal, but I still want to believe in it!

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/22/doctor-will-kill-healthy-24-year-old-in-euthanasia-whos-thought-of-suicide-since-she-was-a-kid/
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/euthanasia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/

Rights to Pursuit Happiness

Nowadays, forced marriage has phased out since the view of young people on marriage and family has changed. However, forced marriage still exists commonly in South Asia, Middle East and Africa. From my perspective, forced marriage is totally a criminal action that against human rights.

Everyone has his or her rights to pursuit happiness, including marriage. Throughout history, women were often on the vulnerable side that they lack of right to speak up and choose the life they want to live. The victims of forced marriage might be called selfish and told they are bringing shame on honor of the family if they rejected the marriage that is arranged by their family. Under such pressure, they are unable to make their own decisions and chart their own path in life. For me, it sounds ridiculous to say I have to marry someone that is arranged by my family, because I have the right to choose the right person to marry and the right way to live.

People are not just living for their family. Family is a big part of our life, but besides family, and most importantly, we are all living as individuals. Therefore, parents are only guardians who guide their children to be independent rather than controlling their life. Everyone has the right to say no to any unreasonable requests to others, even to their parents. The victims of forced marriage often lack the rights to talk and express their true feelings. They are servile to other family members and the standards of society all the time, in which their voice could never be heard by others.

Do we ever care about animals‘ feeling？

       Before reading the article “Industrial farming is one of the worst crimes in history” by Yuval Noah Harari, I did not notice that farming, the basic support of human’s daily life, contains deep ethical dimensions. In the article, the author indicates that humans started to rule over animals from 45,000 years ago, and 90% of the large terrestrial mammals extinct. Later on, when the agricultural revolution starts, people begin to catch animals and let them become domesticated. Those domesticated animals are fed to meet human’s demand; they live in the crowded shelter and wait for the time to be killed and become food on table. That’s their destiny, and animals are suffering. Moreover, since the population of human beings grows up so quickly, the supplies are not enough. Therefore, scientists develop some medicines to ensuring animals’ survival and reproduction, which keep those domesticated animals live in the cycle of suffering. The root of the problem is that domesticated animals have inherited from their wild ancestors many physical, emotional and social needs that are redundant in farms. The author also brings up the idea that industrial farming “contradict the most basic principles of Darwinian evolution”, that “all instincts and drives have evolved in the interest of survival and reproduction”. When I first time try to make a connection between ethical dimension and animals while after listen the audio about hunting in class, I made the conclusion that “every wild animal should be conserved by human — they have their own life, like human, which should not be effect by the human beings”. This statement completely excludes the domesticated animals, since I believed that “those animals' life is connecting with human beings, they cannot feed themselves unless human feed them”. However, after reading this article, my opinion changes. Every creature in the world has a complex world of sensation and emotion, but those domesticated animals live and die on an industrial production line. There is no way for them to get out of this cycle of suffer due to the huge demand from human beings. While we living in the sensitive world that being sensitive to everything, do we ever care about animals’ feeling? The industrial farming is the worst crimes in history.

Jameis Winston Rape Case

Back in 2012, a freshman at Florida State University, Erica Kinsman, was sexually assaulted by Jameis Winston, the star of the football team, but of course, there were no repercussions to Jameis’s actions. Even though Erica did everything she was supposed to do after she was raped including, reporting the rape, going to the hospital, and having a rape kit performed, Jameis was still not convicted for his actions.

Erica decided to break her silence of her story in the documentary The Hunting Ground and share with the world her point of view of what happened that night. The worst part about this story, is the fact that football and sports has become more important to the school, the town, and the entire country than the well-being of a young girl who was taken advantaged. Even when Erica tried to report her assault, the Tallahassee police officer Scott Angulo asked her to “think twice before filing a report”, saying “Tallahassee is a big football town” and Jameis was their “hero”. Even when Erica decided to report Jameis, the Tallahassee police did nothing for 10 months, even though all of the evidence was there.

The ethical issue that this specific story demonstrates, is one that many girls across the country face today. Why should young girls be blamed for having to go through something so horrific? When Erica’s story became public, she started to receive death threats and abusive messages, all because she was “hurting the reputation of the football star”.

The fact that Jameis was able to escape the ramifications of his actions, only serves to show us of our country’s true priorities. Just because he was the #1 draft for the NFL, the police allowed him to live his life without any ramifications, leaving other young girls at risk of being assaulted. The message that this story conveys is that it is okay to take advantage of girls if you have a high status because that way, there won’t be any ramifications. On what level is that statement ethical? How has sports and status become more important than safety for young women? This is not only an issue of our country’s ethics, but of the priorities we put on the safety for young women and the justice they deserve.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/02/19/erica-kinsman-who-accused-jameis-winston-of-rape-tells-her-story-in-new-documentary-the-hunting-ground/

The right to a happy life

Abortion is a huge controversy in the world. Belief, religion, and life circumstances play a huge roll in people's thoughts and viewpoints on abortion. I believe that abortion should be a person's choice. The decision on wether or not it is ethical is different in different circumstances. I think killing a human being, even a small one that is developing, is not a 'good' thing to do however it is ethical when the circumstances the child would be born into are bad. If the child was a result of a rape the child may be unhappy knowing this or live in a household unconducive to a happy childhood. If the child would be born into poverty or an unhealthy environment or a family that doesn't really want a kid, is it right to still have them? I think it is better to allow that parent to choose wether or not they want to have the kid. There are a lot of orphaned children which seems wrong when, in my opinion, the point of having a child is for you to keep the child. If the mother knows ahead of time that she will not be able to keep the child or give it a good life then it is her right to be able to choose wether or not to have the child, leaving her the option of abortion, which is ethical when thinking about the potential life of the child. When getting an abortion the kid is not formed completely or born yet so it is not killing a living human being. It's not right to have a child that will live a life of suffering and in that sense I believe that abortion is ethical.

What you need to pay to be a women

    Every year, about 3 million girls in Africa are at risk going through female circumcision. According to BBC ethics definition, it is the practice of cutting or removing clitoris, a sensitive part of female genitals. The cutting usually takes place when the girl is 3 to 10 years old. Female circumcision has long been a ritual in Africa, it is seen as a preparation for marriage and a prove for the women’s physical endurance. However, the circumcision is carried out in an unsterilized environment using blunt tools such as tin cans or fragment of class. As a result, many women can get infection or even die after the circumcision. Meanwhile, they will have a lifelong loss of sensation during sex. 

   As far as I am concerned, female circumcision is an inhuman way to treat women, which cruelly deprives women’s rights. Clearly, circumcision considers women to be men’s property, thus neglect their will of whether or not they want to be circumcised. Moreover, because women cannot feel pleasure during sexual intercourse, they are just “used” by their husbands as a means of reproduction. 

   Except the mental torment women suffer from circumcision, the badly treated wound also causes further pain in women’s physical body. It usually has a negative impact in women’s general health and their child bearing capabilities. Once they are circumcised, it is impossible for them to think that they are the same as other healthy women.  

   Female circumcision is a result of feudalism. After the circumcision, often times the wound is sewed up and will not be opened until the woman get married. This is a way to keep women’s virginity. Thus, uncircumcised women are thought to be “unclean”. On contrary to this false idea, the ethical attitude is to treat women equally as men. Women should be proud of their gender and enjoy a health life. 

Necessary Attacks Might Be Unnecessary

I believe in the ethics of a pre-emptive strike. I am kind of confusing myself as I write this, but when I thought about all of the possible causes for a pre-emptive strike, they made sense. In Traitor, we saw the effects of the pre-emptive strike. They were trying to hunt down the terrorist group before they were able to strike based on Samir’s tip. In that case, Samir had attacked the terrorists before the FBI was able to show up, but it is possible to save a lot of lives by using pre-emptive strikes. Just think, if the US government knew about 9-11 before hand (conspiracy theories aside), wouldn’t you hope that they would have stopped the attack? I know it’s wishful thinking, but it seems to me that if you have the reasonable proof and evidence of an attack, it makes sense to stop it. With the example of the atomic bomb, I understand why Truman allowed the attack. While any loss of life is terrible, when death is unavoidable, I can see this sense in striking before necessary. However, it can conflict with the doctrine of just war by making a move before war is really called for. In my opinion, pre-emptive strikes can be called for when there is an attack coming on civilians or it’s an act of terror, but other times it can be unnecessary and damaging to people and societies.

Escaping Abuse

Whether or not a parent is abusive is debated in many circles. For instance, some parents may claim that they are just “strict” and completely deny their unacceptable behavior. This supposed strictness can be a form of emotional abuse- controlling behavior, manipulation- a cornucopia of poisonous behavior. By being “tough” the abusive parent sometimes fully believe that they are doing their children a favor- making them stronger for the outside world. Is hardening your children really beneficial? Making them numb to their own pain, unable to feel or relate to others in a healthy manner? Sure. Totally helps your kids.  At eight years old a girl who doesn’t cry may seem strong; later, there no tears when they crash a bicycle and need stitches at the age of thirteen, but also are unable to properly process pain or sadness, instead prone to emotional outbursts, displaying anger and frustration at inappropriate moments. 

These outbursts can cause further issues- misdiagnosis for ADHD, for example, which makes children more controllable and easier to manipulate, effectively taking the fight out of them. In fact, in a recent study it was shown that nearly one million children living in a abusive or at-risk households are misdiagnosed with ADHD every year

Another problem is that abusive parents are often not held accountable- by their own children and by law officials. The reason for this is that manipulation plays a huge factor in their abuse- convincing their children that they are the “good guys” while harming them, and pitting their children against other trusted adults that could take them out of a detrimental environment.

The “good guys” in this situation are anyone the abuser sees as a threat- perhaps school counselors, teachers, relatives or even other parents. The good guys are often not so good. 

Child Protective Services, whose aim is to remove children from at-risk households, does an incredibly poor job at doing so. When a school counselor called CPS, the social workers had my abusive parent drive me to CPS- along the way, the parent threatened me and my other parent, ensuring that I wouldn’t “say anything stupid”. I was so afraid that I could not speak up to help myself- social workers didn’t do much to protect me. Instead, I had to take my own father to court at the age of fourteen to procure a restraining order. 

The judge just barely granted it, barely believing me, and dismissing the case as “a child stuck between two parents.”

Abuse, from the perspective of any but the abuser, is bad; and furthermore, the institutions put in place to prevent it are insufficient.

Do be rid of pain or not?

        I chose the topic of Euthanasia because it is a topic that is sometimes discussed in my family as I have a very sick family member. As a result, I do not have a clear stance on what I believe to be “right” or “wrong” on deciding to inject this into a person. However, I will try to state the advantages and disadvantages that I see in taking Euthanasia. 

        Euthanasia is the option of terminating a person’s life so that they are relieved of any suffering they’re enduring. Usually, it’s carried out if a person is terminally ill and the suffering has been prolonged for an extended period of time. Sometimes it is injected by the person’s request and other times the decision is made by a family member. This is where I find a fault in the process. I lean towards the religious view of, who are we to decide whether it is a person’s time to die or not? The bigger part of me believes that the decision should only be made by the person whom is ill. Hopefully, they would include it in their will, but the reality is, do we stop and think that we’ll end up with a grave sickness not allowing us to make the decision for ourselves? As I witness the decline of my godfather it is a constant ethical dilemma that all of my family members struggle with. If the person themselves cannot speak on their own behalf, as a loved one would you be able to continuously subject them to stay suffering in deep pain? Could one let them die in pain when there’s the option of having them pass away without it? Some patients decide to take the injection after the realization and fear of how they are going to worsen, others start feeling like a burden to their families. Euthanasia allows some people to die with dignity and still have the knowledge of who they are. Though there still exists the grand question of whether or not there is a moral difference between letting a person die and killing them. For it can be viewed as murder and illegal in places like the UK. A few people argue that in the future it can be abused and it’s giving too much power to the doctors. Personally, I am still in a sort of in-between on what is “best” in certain circumstances. But it is difficult and saddening to have a loved one be in deep pain when there could be another option. 

Animal Testing- an ethical atrocity

Living in the liberal-centric Marin my entire life, those around me have uniformly told me that animal experimentation is wrong. Period. However, what I was not exposed to is the fact that animal testing, although commonly used in the context of cosmetic testing, is very common in medical and pharmaceutical testing and has likely saved the lives of millions of people. For many people, this is reason enough to hop on board. However, despite my newfound knowledge of the benefits of animal testing,  I believe this practice is an ethical atrocity. Here's why:
For one, animal testing is grounded on the ideal that a human life is worth more than an animal life. Animal testing has persevered all these years because of the idea that “great benefits for humanity” morally rationalize harming animals (BBC). However, there is no true evidence that humans are worth more than any type of animal. Even though animal testing has saved millions of lives, the practice can't possibly be considered morally acceptable if those lives have been saved at the cost of other lives. 1 human life does not equal 4 rabbit lives. Everything on this planet is here for equally important reasons and therefore should be valued equally.
Although death is considered to be the ultimate injustice that these animals suffer, the reality is that their lives are even more horrendous. Although experimenting parties are told by law to try to minimize suffering, the lives that these animals live are horrendous and essentially the equivalent of torture. Not only is animal testing based on the ideal that animal lives are worth less, it also assumes that their emotions are worth less. How can this practice possibly be justified when it disregards the very thing that we humans pride ourselves on- emotional capacity?
         Looking deeper into the ethical dilemma that is animal experimentation, I came across a article from the Wall Street Journal about the medical benefits of animal testing. The author, clearly in favor of the practice,  mentioned how new studies in research labs around the country have led to potentially amazing developments in the world of medicine.  For her, I just have one question. Just what makes us better than them? Animal testing, as a whole, demonstrates human's disconnect with nature and our innate ego-centricity. Saving lives is saving lives. But killing in order to save lives is not saving lives, it's just killing.