There has been much debate over the years concerning the ethics behind our use and treatment of animals. The controversy continues today, without any universal conclusion as to whether or not our treatment is immoral. However, it is my belief that our society's use of animals for food, research, and sport is not morally justifiable.
             One reason that our use of animals in unjustifiable is that animals are sentient. It does not matter if the being can reason or talk, what's relevant is whether or not they can suffer. If something feels pain, it should be given moral consideration and inflicting pain upon it should be avoided. According to Louis P. Pojman, author of Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, there have been accounts of animals in labs being shocked to study the effects of insanity, drowned in oil to study effect of oil spills, and given LSD to test aggression. Obviously these practices inflict pain on the animals and we, as moral agents, have a moral obligation to consider this.
             There are several theories that show evidence for animals' ability to feel pain. The identity theory defines pain as c neurons firing. In this case, all animals that have the same basic makeup as humans would also possess the neurons necessary for feeling pain. This would include mammals, and possibly birds and reptiles, but not invertebrates. Functionalism states that anything that detects bodily damage and reacts can feel pain. In this case, all animals would be considered as sentient.
             There is obviously a difference between humans and animals, but that is not to say that animals have no rights. Humans are moral agents, which means that we have the conceptual ability to apply moral principles in making our decisions. We have free will to act on morals, and it is completely fair to hold us accountable for our acts. Moral patients, on other hand, lack the capability to make moral decisions; therefore they cannot b...