Possible moral positions

Regarding animal ethics, people can take a variety of moral positions, from completely human-centered to full animal rights.

It is almost unacceptable to develop or use animals in ways that do not match the best interests of the animals concerned.

Animals should be treated in the way most appropriate for that animal - this may not be suitable for humans

In cases where these conflict with the rights of other animals or human beings, the right to infringe animals may be morally correct - each case must be decided based on the merit of the case.

In some cases it is acceptable to develop or use animals as long as they guarantee that animals are handled humanely in the process.

Harm animals do not have the right (even if they do not have moral responsibility for the damage they cause)

Endangered species are more powerful than other species members (this is not a real right point - more hope to protect the world 's diversity)

The aim of mankind should be to treat animals in the way most suitable for animals, which is not contradictory to the best way of human beings.

Therefore, animals can be used for food, clothing, experiments and other purposes in other cases where appropriate.

This view considers human atrocities against animals to be moral errors.

This position is not particularly clear for reasons, but it is very effective as a guide to animal ethics treatment.

As long as they are humanely treated in this process, they can use or use animals to help humans.

Thus animals can be used for food, clothing, experiments, entertainment and other purposes where appropriate.

Although not so extreme, animals can be treated in a way that is not ethical to humans.

For example, some think that atrocities against animals are wrong because of atrocities.

When we do "wrong" things to animals, moral errors are actually made by people "possessing" animals or having some interest in animals.

Controversy from the amazing moral knowledge of God: Of course, this religious declaration is always possible to state the correct moral position even if you do not know whether only human beings are correct. In this respect, in order to know what we do not know or do not know, it is possible to believe only the religious obligation and the priority of the law. This is satisfying for some people, and it is obvious that Job was satisfied even at the end of "Job", but that was only then. Until the end of the book, Job's view is more meaningful to most people, but I write it elsewhere (www.Garlikov.com/Job.html), but "Job" has good and evil for people It shows that. I feel it. God's order

Most of those who deny the existence of one or more moral temperament are people trying to maintain a morally central position in our lives. But it is also possible to take a position to deny the possibility of moral luck and at the same time it shows that the principle of control is the truth, but that morality is a central role we may want It hinders playing. Such a position seems to be used by Williams from his (1993) "postscript" to "moral luck". An important tool for those who want to explain the existence of moral luck is "cognitive theory" called by Latus (2000) (see Richards, Rescher, Rosebury, and Thomson). Let's begin by focusing on the resulting luck to see how it develops. Why are there different opinions about successful murder and failed murder? Because, according to cognitive theory, we rarely know exactly what the individual's intent is or the strength of her commitment to the action plan.