More Often There's A Compromise Between Ethics

So Far As This Argument Is Concerned Nonhuman Animals And Infants And Retarded Humans Are In The Same Category; And If We Use This Argument To Justify Experiments On Nonhuman Animals We Have To Ask Ourselves Whether We Are Also Prepared To Allow Experiments On Human Infants And Retarded Adults; And If We Make A Distinction Between Animals And These Humans, On What Basis Can We Do It, Other Than A Bare-faced - And Morally Indefensible - Preference For Members Of Our Own Species?

If We Are Prepared To Take The Life Of Another Being Merely In Order To Satisfy Our Taste For A Particular Type Of Food, Then That Being Is No More Than A Means To Our End.

The Newspapers Do Little Better. Their Coverage Of Nonhuman Animals Is Dominated By "human Interest" Events Like The Birth Of A Baby Gorilla At The Zoo, Or By Threats To Endangered Species; But Developments In Farming Techniques That Deprive Millions Of Animals Of Freedom Of Movement Go Unreported.

As For Cages Themselves, An Ordinary Citizen Who Kept Dogs In Similar Conditions For Their Entire Lives Would Risk Prosecution For Cruelty. A Pig Producer Who Keeps An Animal Of Comparable Intelligence In This Manner, However, Is More Likely To Be Rewarded With A Tax Concession Or, In Some Countries, A Direct Government Subsidy.

The Notion That Human Life Is Sacred Just Because It Is Human Life Is Medieval.