Response to Andrew McNamara's Post: Does the labeling of an animal, for example ''laboratory animals'', have an effect on its moral status?

I agree it certainly does. The whole purpose of a lab is to utilize instruments for the purpose of advancing one's cause (could be his self interest, human interest, or other interest). When we keep animals in labs, we are not acknowledging their intrinsic value. They are instruments (possessing extrinsic value) for what we deem fit for them. We try to be nature's regulatory force when we try to prevent something in nature to occur that might harm us. Our best defense besides self interest is that we are preserving nature, but is that true? Isn't it reductive to self interest still since nature continues regardless of human existence? 

Abstract Morality V. Practical Morality

I was a little confused about how it can be morally defensible to kill for ones own sake. After speaking Dr.Silliman, I learned that morality can be abstract or practical. With this in mind, I think I can better answer on what grounds hunting in Zimbabwe is morally defensible.

Abstract morality is based on principles that are absolute. It is never adjusted under any circumstance. Under this type of morality, the people of Zimbabwe are not justified in hunting for their survival if each living entities life is considered of equal value.

Practical morality is more circumstantially based. It adjusts with situations. Under this notion, if all things posses a right to live, the people of Zimbabwe are justified in hunting for sustenance.

Please share your thoughts.

Response To Kurt's: Vegetarianism and Culture

I see your point that politics, economics, and the other provisions mentioned do in fact hinder one's ability to be vegetarian. With regards to culture, I think you touched base on the hidden vegetarians that will come out of their closet when norms have shifted. This change of theirs is very much contingent upon the active increase of the populous who are openly changing before norms have shifted. These are the individuals who are making a change because their sense of duty supersedes their personal sentiment. However, the individuals who are waiting seem to be held back by personal sentiment that is subservient to societal norms and this makes them robots not individuals with free expression. They are hindrance to change because they add strength in numbers to non vegetarians. I am not saying they are wrong; rather, I contend that they prevent the norms from shifting because silent support is simply empty since there is not an apparent tangible force (strength in numbers).

My Take on Animal Experimentation

I think animal experimentation is never morally justifiable since we have no way of truly knowing whether the animal gives consent for experimentation. It is neither morally justifiable to experiment on another species to compensate for our weakness no matter how minor the pain inflicted upon it is nor is it for the benefit of its own species. However, this does not mean we can not experiment on it. We can sacrifice morality in lieu of acceptability. If the harm or death through experimentation of one ape is necessary to save its species we can do it as long as we are near certain of the intended results.

Vegetarianism V. Veganism

I think veganism is more ethically consistent then vegetarianism in some circumstances, but not all. For example, if a vegetarian ignorantly consumes eggs and diary products without knowing the practices or who is harmed in the process of producing this good, then he or she is not ethically inconsistent because they have no access to knowledge they do not know. These cases may be extremely rare, but they can occur. Conversely, if a vegetarian consumes these products and knows the methods in producing these goods were harmful in someway then they are not ethically consistent.