The shortcomings of democracy

The political power and other institutions and actors around the world who embrace the liberal worths cannot be said being fixed and consistent in their decisions and acting. Instead it is arbitrary interests and aims that decide. Governments and other authorities and others in power are actors who are responsible of that the tyranny against the animals can go on. They have the power to act against that animals are suffering  and killed in for example slaughter and animal testing. But despite their power to prohibit that animals are exposed to systematic suffering, they do not do that. Instead they allow the oppression and tyranny against the animals to go on. Certainly they share the general opinion, which is that the animals first and foremost exist in order to serve human interests and are not included in the moral sphere of regard. This blindness and indifference to living beings’ suffering that the western democracies show are a big shortcoming which can not be ignored. It legitimatize such injustices that the persons in authorithy in all of the western democracies cannot be considered being expedient and appropriate for the positions of power that they have and which the people have chosen them to.
In consideration of morality the governments of the liberal, democratic states cannot be considered being more eligible to be in power making decisions than the leaders of states of tyranny are or have been through history. For example Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin are considered as moral unrighteous people who let their arbitrary interests and aims decide their acting. The result was that several people were suffering within the Holocaust where Hitler’s aim was to exterminate the Jews by execute them or forcing them to be working in the concentration camps until they died. The Holocaust was a systematic killing and exploitation of innocent individuals which can be placed on a level the same as the animal oppression. Jews who were exploited and killed in the Nazi concentration camps with purpose to satisfy the Nazi’s interests to get rid of them. Animals who are exploited and killed in the researchers’ laboratories and in the slaughter houses with purpose to satisfy society’s interests. By their political power Hitler and the Nazis legitimatized the annihilation of the Jews, and today they are considered as criminals who’s deeds were wrong, horrible and moral unright. Every state’s ruler who allow the animal-oppressing activities should be considered in the same way; as criminals who’s decisions and actions are wrong and moral unright.
Neither the direct actors who are researchers, people within the slaughter activities, hunters and others who are part of the oppression against the animals can be considered in any other way than as people who commit moral unrights and criminal actions. Many researchers who do experiments with animals claim that it is not cruelty to animals they are doing, but they do not deny that the animals are suffering from the experiments. They claim that cruelty to animals is something else like the meaningless thing of hurting and injuring animals for pleasure. Accordingly researchers mean that the suffering that animals experience when they are exposed to experiments and testing in the laboratories are not cruelty to animals since the suffering leads to advantages for humans, whereas it is cruelty to animals when animals are suffering because of meaningless reasons. The ones who are of that opinion obviously do not realize that if an animal is suffering it is cruelty to animals no matter if the purpose with the suffering leads to advantages for humans as for example production of medicine or a sadist’s pleasure of injuring animals. The purpose is of no importance, but instead it is the animal’s experience of suffering which is of importance.
There are no rules that prohibit animal testing, and because of that it is claimed that it cannot be wrong or criminal doing animal testing. Neither dispatching animals to slaughter and hunting animals are of the same reasons wrong, it is considered; there are no rules that prohibit that. In a similar way the doctors, the guards of the concentration camps and other Nazis in Germany justified their actions. They performed cruel experiments and executed several Jews and other prisoners of the concentration camps and justified this actions by claiming that they just did their duty and their work. Accordingly they were following orders and did not take responsibility for their actions. In a similar way researchers, butchers and other persons of the food manufacturing industry, hunters and other actors of the animal oppression are following orders. They do what is expected of them and provide society with the things it wants. But their actions include exposing animals to suffering and death, so accordingly they are immoral and criminal actions which make every researcher, butcher, hunter and any other else actor who has a part of the oppression against the animals to an unrighteous person who cannot be considered in any other way than as a criminal no matter how righteous he or she in other respects are.
From this it appears that it would be better and more fair with some kind of guardianship rather than democracy. A guardian in form of a morally good elite. Someone or someones who share my view and who would strive for the best for every living, sentient being. Living beings would be afforded regard and rights that would be inviolable. In that way decisions and laws never would be unfair and wrong like they can be in the democratic process. As we all know it is very obvious that the general public and the elected ones in power lack moral uprightness and justice and accordingly are not appropriate to make decisions upon living, sentient beings’ lives as they do when they allow that animals are tormented and killed.

image

image

image

image

imageimage

 

Annonser

Every little being should be a friend

It is claimed, amongst others by United Nations with their principles and the Declaration of Human Rights, that it is reason enough being a human to be included in the moral sphere of regard and being entitled rights. That is to say that human beings have an inner worth that consists of the specific human qualities such as reason, rationality and a moral sense. Animals more or less lack these qualities, and above all it is this fact that has been keeping them and still is keeping them outside the moral sphere of regard.

Through history it generally has been considered there are no moral obligations taking regard to animals interests, and that they should not be ascribed rights on the same conditions as humans. Generally it is considered that animals’ lives and suffering are lesser important than human suffering. But the importance of preventing suffering and death does not diminish because of the fact that the individual who is suffering or killed does not belong the human species. The principle of equality has to be applied to concern every living being. Whether an individual should be given regards is not going to be decided by qualities and characteristics such as the number of legs, the grade of intelligence or the ability of thinking reasonably. What justifies regards is the ability to suffer and feel. These ones are the most fundamental characteristics of living beings. Just like human beings animals have faculty to suffer and feel, and that is the strongest reason to why they should be shown the same regard as humans are shown. So accordingly, animals interests of escaping suffering from animal testing and slaughter should be put before humans’ interests of scientific progresses and of satisfying their taste buds.

United Nations and their democratic societies claim that rights, such as the right to life, prohibition against torture and other cruel treatment, and prohibition against discrimination, will be respected and granted every human, which means that disregard due to sex, ethnicity, grade of intelligence or other qualities and characteristics may not be done. That is to say, UN and its states want to work for promoting of rights for every individuals independent of their qualities and characteristics, but yet they ignore big injustices just by individual- and qualities-related reasons. That is what they do when they do not grant other beings, which are the animals, respect and regard on the same conditions as humans.

Several animals are killed and exposed to suffering for example within the activities within slaughter respectively animal testing. The animals are denied the right to life when they are slaughtered. Animal testing is a form of grave torture since it is expressed in a very similar way; animals are exposed to electricity, are scalded and burned just like human beings have been exposed to during grave torture. FN claims that torture always is wrong and never may occur, but this resitance against torture accordingly intend only when it concerns human beings. Obviously FN is not against the act of torture itself and the suffering it bring about since it is allowed that animals are exposed to painful and tormenting experiments very like torture. This is a form of double standard of morality by FN and its states. If it is claimed that the difference is that in one case human beings are suffering and in the other case animals one has to explain why difference of species can make any moral difference of the two groups treatment. If it is wrong to cause suffering, it is wrong no matter who is suffering. An individuals ethnicity, sex, grade of intelligence and other qualities and characteristics are irrelevant characteristics for moral rights as well as belonging to species is.

Every living being should be treated with equal regard. The world should be a place full of happiness where every being is a friend.

image

image