In today’s society, it is considered completely normal as well as morally acceptable to exploit animals for human use (as in the raising of “dairy” cows), to torture them (as in vivisection) and to kill them (as in the slaughter of “beef cattle”). 

Evolution gave humans the ability to realize this exploitation of animals. Mankind is tempted to use this ability to vest itself the so-called “right of the strongest”. This self-awarded right of the strongest is then used as the moral foundation for exploiting, torturing and killing animals. To the contrary the moral standards of our society are just not based on the “right of the strongest”. A true ethical framework does not allow the strong simply to apply moral tenets randomly in order to suit their own interests. Therefore, the “right of the strongest” and true moral values are mutually exclusive. Although it is clear that the “right of the strongest” cannot be reconciled with our society’s moral values – in fact, moral values exist mainly to shield the weak from the arbitrary actions of the strong – it still needs to be examined whether the human exploitation of animals can ever be considered morally acceptable. In attempting to morally justify the exploitation of animals, society uses a shaky “ethical” construction. The human species proclaims a higher intrinsic value for itself and simply excludes animals from the current ethical framework of our moral precepts. Simply the power of the so-called “right of the strongest” allows us to elevate our own “value” and devalue animals. This special construct, which people use as a moral justification for exploiting animals, needs to be logically examined so we can decide whether it is in any way morally defensible. However, as I said before, a true ethical framework cannot depend on the “right of the strongest”, and it cannot simply be based on the interests of the powerful.