| Abstract: | About twenty years ago the traditional question whether humans are allowed to kill animals was replaced by two new questions: the question of killing and the question of suffering. The question of killing ist the abstract question if--in isolation from the question of suffering--finishing an animal's life is moral. So the question of killing can be raised for every single case of an animal killed by man. The moral evaluation of a killing without suffering (of all directly and indirectly involved beings) concerns just the question of killing; for example, an experiment in which the animal is made unconscious by an anesthetic prior to the experiment being performed and is then killed before it regains consciousness.--The comparative analysis of the popular arguments demonstrates fallacies in some of them and shows a new view of the problem. Because not the killing itself (without fear or pain) but the innate fear of death is the real motive to reject ones own killing, it is necessary to demand that every killing of an animal by man is done without any fear (or pain) for the animal. To claim an animal's right to life however is not yet justified. |
