Introduction:

The question of what moral responsibilities, if any, humans have towards animals is a complex and widely debated topic. Throughout history and across different cultures, varying perspectives have emerged regarding the ethical considerations surrounding our interactions with non-human species. This exploration aims to examine the different facets of this discussion, acknowledging the diverse viewpoints and the intricate nature of the relationship between humans and animals. To facilitate a comprehensive understanding, we can consider several fundamental questions:

    ·What are the potential bases for extending moral consideration to animals, and what are the arguments for and against these bases? This involves exploring different philosophical perspectives on sentience, consciousness, and other criteria that might warrant moral consideration.
    ·What are the arguments for and against the idea that humans have a responsibility to prevent animal suffering, regardless of whether that suffering is deemed necessary for human benefit? This involves examining different ethical frameworks and their implications for animal welfare in various contexts.
    ·What are the different perspectives on whether animals possess rights, and if so, what might be the scope and nature of such rights in comparison to human rights? This includes exploring the concept of animal rights from various philosophical and legal standpoints.
    ·How do different ethical frameworks approach the question of whether and how our moral considerations for animals should influence human practices such as dietary choices and consumption habits? This involves examining the ethical implications of different human activities that involve animals.
    ·What are the various viewpoints on the extent of human responsibility towards wild animals and the preservation of their natural habitats, considering potential conflicts with human interests? This includes exploring different perspectives on conservation, environmental ethics, and the human role in the natural world.

By considering these questions from multiple angles, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of the diverse perspectives and complexities involved in the ongoing discussion about the scope of human moral responsibility towards animals.

Vocabulary site: https://zh.purasbar.com/post.php?t=31865

I view a phenomenon that the elders like parents and uncles , have less moral consideration than the youngsters. Elders can easily kill or eat some animals for food with less mercy,  so why? Probably because they grow up in a poor condition, hardly feed themselves, so the meaning of animals to them is more like food other than a lovely creature or company. So from my perspective, if we want to extend moral consideration for animals, the basis is to improve people's lives, as the old saying goes: belly full, lust awake（飽暖思淫慾), the same as the moral consideration for animals. The quality of people's lives goes up, the consideration for animals  comes naturally.

According to my search, there are six theortical basis of Moral Responsibility Towards Animals: sentience, right-based approaches, ecological reasons, virtue ethics, social contract theory and speciesism and anti-discrimination arguments。

From my prespective, among these reasons, virtue ethics have the solidest arguments. Because other theories are based on a premise that animal's everything, such as feeling, rights and role, counts. However, that seems has nothing to do with humans.

But I'm against virtue ethics too. Virtues vary on culture, which would cause the conflicts between different cultures. 

When referring this topic, I will suddenly think of there are some "Anti-Cats" or "Anti-Dogs" netizens. They hate cats or dogs and they support people who like to abuse animals

   ·What are the potential bases for extending moral consideration to animals, and what are the arguments for and against these bases? This involves exploring different philosophical perspectives on sentience, consciousness, and other criteria that might warrant moral consideration.

Animal-protection is indeed human-protection. 

Like anti animal abusing is indeed a protection for humans. When the most of people witness animal abusing scenes, it will arouse a very strong disgusting feeling

Or wild animal protection is indeed a conservation of natural resources. Biodiversity is indeed a very important natural resource for human beings

    ·What are the arguments for and against the idea that humans have a responsibility to prevent animal suffering, regardless of whether that suffering is deemed necessary for human benefit? This involves examining different ethical frameworks and their implications for animal welfare in various contexts.

The answer is very simple: It is because the most of people don't like to see animal suffering. There is an old saying from China: A gentleman is distant kitchen. Most of us need to eat meat (because we need protein and besides meat is very scrumptious). But they don't want to see animal slaughters in person

    ·What are the different perspectives on whether animals possess rights, and if so, what might be the scope and nature of such rights in comparison to human rights? This includes exploring the concept of animal rights from various philosophical and legal standpoints.

Animals don't have right, but human do! People have right to protect themselves from gory and violent scenes!