Why must we protect animals?
Like we human beings, animals have consciousness and feeling, and can experience suffering and happiness.
No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is the enough reason why we must protect animals.
But the act of saving one animal can cause suffering in another .... Save the rabbit and the fox or hawk starves. If we do not consider the need to save one animal from another then from what do we save them?
Why do we not advocate "protecting plants"?
Plants do not have brain or nerve, so that they do not have any consciousness at all, including any suffering or happiness.
Therefore, in terms of morality, there is no need to protect plants.
None like us, but the science has shown how plants communicate, how they react to negative stimuli, and how they react to positive stimuli. We call negative stimuli suffering and positive stimuli happiness. What animals feel is different from what humans feel and what plants "feel" is different from both. Where does the line matter and why is that the better choice?
Why do we not advocate "protecting mosquitoes"?
All vertebrate animals, including human beings, have advanced nervous systems, and have strong feeling and consciousness. However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have very simpl e nervous systems, so that most invertebrates' feeling and consciousness are very weak.
We do not say "protect mosquitoes" or "protect mites", because their feeling and consciousness are very weak.
The feeling of humans is also impacted by the ability to understand when pain is probably going to be felt, which can amplify that feeling. Why is one weaker feeling less important than another weaker feeling?
Why we must not kill animals, although animals keep killing each other?
Animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence, and cannot understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals. It is just as you cannot condemn a child who is three or four years old for killing someone, because it knows nothing; in fact, many animals have the same intelligence level as a child at that age does.
However, adults' intelligence level is high enough for them to know that their behaviors may bring suffering to other individuals. Under the circumstance of knowing that, doing such behaviors is an obvious atrocity.
But we take precautions to prevent the children from harming themselves and/or others, so we should take those same precautions for animals too? If not, where is the line drawn and why?
Why do we not obey the natural law which lets the strong ones prey upon the weak ones?
The natural law that allows the strong ones to prey upon the weak ones runs counter to the human ethics. If not, there would be no need to protect the disadvantaged groups.
The weak ones should be protected. The laws of nature are brutal, but the human ethics are compassionate. We human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing, not perform the killing.
Except some human ethics agree with the stronger preying on the weaker. There is no uniform code of ethics for any group.
Why should we be concerned about animals, rather than people?
People live really well nowadays. Most of the so-call disadvantaged groups and poor people are just have rough or less good living conditions. In addition, the human societies keep offering helps and opportunities to those disadvantaged people; with the development of societies, the helps and opportunities keep increasing.
In comparison, animals’ situations make me feel sorrier – at least those poor people will not be mistreated or killed. However, there is not even any relevant law to punish the murderers who killed animals cruelly. Now there is nothing more urgent than protecting animals.
Why would your feelings be the key point of decision? How about those who feel sorrier for the plight of poor children who are exposed to disease without the access to medical treatment and as a result die?
Moreover, there is a distinction of good and evil in humans, but animals are all innocent and lovely – just as children (many animals have the same intelligence as children do); every single child is lovely.
Not really. Have you ever encountered a predator? The are not all innocent and lovely if they view you as lunch or a threat to their lunch.
Nowadays the rich and powerful people, have strong power, but always squander the power and capital on luxurious lives and meaningless faiths. I will be the owner of power, and use the power to make the greatest contribution to animal protection.
Strive for it!
Great, then we can save our power and capital to use as we see fit as you do not need it.