If We Can Put A Man On

It May Be Thought Justifiable To Require Tests On Animals Of Potentially Life-saving Drugs, But The Same Kinds Of Tests Are Used For Products Like Cosmetics, Food Coloring, And Floor Polishes. Should Thousands Of Animals Suffer So That A New Kind Of Lipstick Or Floor Wax Can Be Put On The Market? Don't We Already Have An Excess Of Most Of These Products? Who Benefits From Their Introduction, Except The Companies That Hope To Profit From Them?

There Could Conceivably Be Circumstances In Which An Experiment On An Animal Stands To Reduce Suffering So Much That It Would Be Permissible To Carry It Out Even If It Involved Harm To The Animal... [even If] The Animal Were A Human Being.

According To The Dominant Western Tradition, The Natural World Exists For The Benefit Of Human Beings.

We Certainly Would Resolve The Problems Of The Charities That Are Working In Areas Where They Can Do The Most Good. So If You Consider That The U.s. Foreign Aid Budget Is 30 Billion, Yes, We Could Make A Major Contribution To Reducing Global Poverty, Start To Deal Much Better With Some Of The Other Big Environmental Problems That The World Faces. So I Think We Could Solve A Lot Of Problems.

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.