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.