There is no justification for treating animals badly, as if they were things and not living beings with intelligence; and that some of them, like pets, suffer with abuse.

Treatment of things is absolutely necessary for any living creature. I think you meant something like bad/unethical treatment of animals, right? In that case, should we also ask for our treatment of plants? bacteria? unanimated matter? I mean, where is the limit?

There is no justification for treating animals badly, as if they were things and not living beings with intelligence; and that some of them, like pets, suffer with abuse.

Totally agree Jose.. I think the question is what is bad or good treatment, and also if we should also ask similar questions for other living organisms.

Not sure whether you're saying good or bad, with respect to "treatment." For example, my daughter is a veterinary internist. She treats animals at least as well as humans. Why? She has a very clear sense of what is a living creature and what is not. Living creatures naturally take precedence over anything else, in her view.

I suppose that's logical enough, even in a purely selfish way. As humans, we can rebuild anything that isn't living, but we depend on our surrounding ecosystem. It makes a lot of sense to preserve and protect living creatures. Plants too, for that matter.

If you imply that our treatment of animals is bad, then I would suggest that those who treat animals badly probably treat anyone else badly too.

I also side with Jose; however, my issue is whether the treatment is good or bad. Animals are delicacies for human being; perhaps the treatment comes in with regards to how we keep them as livestock.

Animal have feelings and they show it. They interact in many ways with us and the environment. I am not an activist, but in my house no forms of lives are killed unless there is a serious motive for it. We try to keep the house clean and avoid things used to atract unwanted forms of lives. But we do not use any kind of poisons to kill anything.

Vilemar Magalhães

Our dominion over animals actually gives us responsibility to treat them humanely and use them in a sustainable manner.

Dear All,

Biosphere cannot be maintained without the living beings. Humans cannot survive without plants and animals. It is our responsibility even interest to save and maintain animal and plant populations. Domesticated and wild animals should be managed with care and intelligence. It is essential human interest.

Humans have been given the heavenly right to take care of the animals in nature. It is our duty to treat them gently and care for their needs as if they were human. After all, they equally owe the right of coexistence with the human family.

George Bernard Shaw, a vegan, wrote well on this matter-pointing out that the way we treat animals reflects on and results in the way we treat human beings. The mass slaughter of the abattoir was reflected in the mass slaughters of World War 1, and later.

Sharing link,

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/

Regards!

"Man is the cruelest animal" Nietzsche. It is unfortunate though that animal ethics tend to focus not on animals having inalienable rights and so deserving of just treatment but rather their humane treatment as lack of it hurts your fellow man and the way he feels (badly) when animals are abused. Not ideal but it appears that's the present rationale.

In the Holy Quran, Allah says: There is no animal in the earth, nor a bird that flies its wings like nations like you. As a veterinarian, see the animal self in its own accord and suffering the disease as it is for the human soul and its suffering with the disease

Dear Kirk,

I forgot to answer directly your question: only the common (sober) sense can justify the human treatment of animals.

the life they possess

None other than our power over them.

On the level of health, animal treatment is very necessary in the case of human beings .. On the human level, good dealing with animals recommended by God Almighty

Strange question. The Christian religion is anthropocentric. For anthropocentists the way humans treat animals is a matter of human convenience. Albert Schweitzer, who deviated from the protestant norm in this regard, admitted that made him a heretic. In the modern market economy anthropocentrism normally means that the treatment of animals is mainly determined by economic considerations. Anthropocentrism is going out of fashion even among Christians hese days. People have countless ways of justifying their treatment of animals.

If your question is descriptive, do a social survey.

If you mean, how OUGHT people to treat animals, that is a different question.

Edouard is of course correct in that the Abrahamic approach to animals, ably detailed in Genesis, is that human kind are superior, we named animals after all, and can more or less do with them as we want. But, lets try and be more moral than these religions, rise above them, and keep to the present code of recognising that animals suffer and many appear to have emotions. Surely, anyway the idea that animals are ciphers belongs to Descartes?