When it comes to family, many consider their pets to be members of it: some go so far as to create social media accounts of their pets including their surname. However, when it comes to other animals, such as rats and chickens, the same family members would most likely find it okay to subject them to medical tests or slaughter them to eat for dinner, while they are not so different to those they consider family: they are all animals, just as “Animals Like Us” author Hal Herzog stated in his article that “[he] opposes testing the toxicity of oven cleaner and eye shadow on animals, but [he] would sacrifice a lot of mice to find a cure for cancer” (247). “Animals Like Us” discusses the conflicting and often contradictory views that individuals tend to have when it comes to animal ethics. There are common moral complexities in deciding whether or not it is acceptable killing another species for the benefit of humans. While there may be several aspects to consider, when deciding how to approach and treat animals, people should recognize the animals' sentience, ability to reproduce, and level of hierarchy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay One of the many similarities that humans and animals have is their ability to feel emotions and pain; however, it is a quality that also varies between different types of animals. Dogs and cats are known to show affection towards their owners - some even call dogs man's best friend - and, in many cases, help their owners emotionally by comforting them during times of stress. On the other hand, dogs and cats are also known to display personal emotions, such as depression and happiness, when certain situations occur in their personal lives. Through the clear display of positive and negative emotions, humans have deemed it inhumane to slaughter and/or test the common family pet. However, just because dogs and cats tend to be better at demonstrating their sense of emotion doesn't mean that other animals considered food, such as fish and cows, don't have feelings as well. Animals such as fish have been shown to have emotional capabilities; however, different types of animals may have and demonstrate affection to varying degrees and with a lesser sense of awareness and understanding of situations. For example, although it is commonly undesirable to observe a lobster being boiled alive to provide food for humans, they do not go through the painful mental process that many individuals believe. Because of such a low level of awareness, the lobster is only able to feel the high temperature of the boiling water, but not understand that a human has trapped them there and that they need to get out. Through low levels of expression and awareness, it is emotionally easier for humans to cook a lobster than the common pet who would understand the dangerous situation they find themselves in. Herzog describes in his article "Animals Like Us" how Judith Black, a vegetarian with a doctorate in anthropology, did not consider fish to be animals, therefore acceptable to eat. “They just didn't look like animals to her. So, for the next fifteen years, this intuitive biological classification system allowed Judith to think of herself as vegetarian while continuing to experience the joys of Copper River smoked salmon and lemon-grilled swordfish” (242). Herzog demonstrates this kind of contrasting view in his article when he states that animals with “one brainhuge and a big heart" (247), tend to be the ones who get genuine care from individuals, rather than a mentality of using them for their nutrition. and medical benefits. When considering ethics, it is fairer to use a animal that has little sensitivity compared to most other animals due to this experiencing a lesser amount of emotional pain than those who are self-aware and express their emotions continuously and clearly. Aside from an animal's ability to demonstrate emotions,. its physical ability to reproduce can have an effect on which animals are chosen to feed humans and help them succeed in medical research. Humans have been found to be among the slowest at creating offspring twenty-one days to give birth to eight or twelve more rats, it takes a human thirteen times that time to give birth to a single baby, creating a different sense of value between species. When deciding whether it is ethical to choose a certain animal for an experiment or food for humans, their population, survival rate and ability to reproduce should be considered as determining factors. A species that is at risk of becoming extinct should not be considered for any type of trial that could further endanger the animals. If an animal, such as rats or fish, which reproduces copious offspring in a short space of time, is found to be of beneficial use to the human race and can do so painlessly, with mild discomfort, minor and short-lived pain, and/ or humanly, it should be morally acceptable, even if not pleasant, to use. Through this way of determining which animals could be used by humans, the loss of one could be replaced with an abundant supply of others of its kind instead of deteriorating it and creating a critical and serious loss. For example, ignoring all emotional and moral attachments, if a human life were lost in an experiment, not only would it create a serious loss of the benefits that society gained from that individual – such as a job – but it would take a minimum nine months so that that person can be replaced, if possible. Furthermore, animals such as rats all serve the same purpose for society and can easily be replaced by another rat due to the overabundance of offspring that come from the same parents and the short time it takes to create more. Therefore, the more capable an animal is of reproducing and the further it is from becoming an endangered species, the more it should be considered morally acceptable to be of beneficial use, as long as all steps taken to obtain the benefits are carried out in human way way. Regarding species values, humans are considered to be at the top of the species hierarchy pyramid. The Greek philosopher Aristotle believed that plants occupied the bottom of the hierarchical ladder, and humans the highest, while animals were in the middle. Due to the superior intelligence and functions of humans compared to other species, they are at the top and consider it vital to keep the human race lasting and use all morally acceptable resources possible to benefit and strengthen the race. Not only is the need to keep the human species intact exclusively beneficial to humans themselves, but it is also beneficial to other species and to humans who continue to create advancements that benefit both themselves and animals. For example, so far, humans have created sanctuaries for animals ranging from domestic animals to wildlife. Animal shelters and wildlife sanctuaries are places where humans welcome said animals.