A morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged. It is often said that only humans are morally considerable because only they can recognize moral claims and this is known as ‘

 coined this term in 1970s to denote a ubiquitous type of human centered prejudice which he considered as another form of 

. He objected the favoring of one’s own species and exploiting the other species for or one’s own interests. 

 an Australian moral philosopher, popularized the term speciesism and focused on how without any moral justification it favors the interests of humans.

Humans have always tried to justify their activities of exploiting other species without any 

. Everything revolves around what humans want in that moment, whether they want to watch a Dolphin perform a stunt or whether they want that spicy chicken wing. Humans have always tried to change the laws of the nature, ignore the emotions of other species co-existing with them just to satisfy their momentary needs. We can say that in recent times the awareness for this subject matter has increased and people have become a bit more sensitive towards animals and their rights, but still we see a great deal of hypocrisy involved in the way humans deal with this problem.

Humans enthusiastically champion animal rights when it comes to animals being caged in enclosures for entertainment. They deny the existence of a hierarchy and condemn the exercising of control over animals just because they are on top of that hierarchical pyramid due to their better ‘evolved’ intelligence. But they totally forget about animal rights when it comes to eating animals, because that affects them directly and they certainly do not want to let go of their transitory satisfaction. When it comes to 

, people conveniently forget animal rights and forget the atrocities we inflict upon them. They present arguments like – humans were hunter and gatherers before farming started, comparing animal eating to plant eating by saying that plants are also alive so why should we eat plants. This disparity in thinking of human beings for two aspects of the same coin reaffirms the fact that they are an extremely 

Our use of animals for food becomes questionable – especially when animal flesh is a 

. Eskimos living in an environment where they must kill animals for food or starve might be justified in claiming that their interest in surviving overrides that of the animals they kill. Most of us cannot defend our diet in this way. Citizens of industrialized societies can easily obtain an adequate diet without the use of animal flesh. The overwhelming weight of medical evidence indicates that animal flesh is not necessary for good health or longevity. Nor is animal production in industrialized societies an efficient way of producing food, since most of the animals consumed have been fattened on foods that we could have eaten directly. When we feed these grains to animals, only about 10 per cent of the nutritional value remains as meat for human consumption. Imagine if all that food went to poor instead of feeding animals. In considering the ethics of the use of animal flesh for human food in industrialized societies, we are considering a situation in which a relatively minor human interest must be put on a pedestal against the lives and welfare of the animals involved. The principle of equal consideration of interests does not allow major interests to be sacrificed for minor interests. The case against using animals for food is at its strongest when animals are made to lead miserable lives so that their flesh can be made available to humans at the lowest possible cost. Modern forms of intensive farming apply science and technology with the attitude that animals are objects for human usage. In order to have meat on the table at an affordable price, our society tolerates methods of meat production that confine sentient animals in cramped, unsuitable conditions for the entire duration of their lives. Animals are treated like machines that convert fodder into flesh, and any innovation that results in a higher ‘conversion ratio’ is liable to be adopted. Still, 

 is a subject of a big joke for many people.

 can be grasped easily by understanding that there are distinct human capacities which shows only humans as the kinds of beings that can be wronged. Some proposed capacities include developing family ties, solving social problems, expressing emotions, starting wars, having sex for pleasure, using language, or thinking abstractly. As it turns out, none of these activities are unique to human. Both scholarly and popular work on animal behavior suggests that many of the activities that are thought to be distinct to humans occurs in animals. For example, many species of animals develop long lasting kinship ties, orangutan mothers stay with their young for eight to ten years and while they eventually part company, they continue to maintain their relationships. Less solitary animals, such as chimpanzees, wolves, and elephants maintain extended family units built upon complex individual relationships, for long periods of time. Meerkats in the Kalahari Desert are known to sacrifice their own safety by staying with sick or injured family members so that the fatally ill will not die alone.

Eating animals is wrong not because it is a violation of their rights or because it creates more suffering than other acts, but rather because in eating animals or using them in other harmful, violent ways, we don’t display kindness, sensitivity, compassion, maturity, and thoughtfulness which members of a moral community should. Even though it is challenging to understand what it is like to be an animal, and even though we are limited by our inevitable anthropocentric perspectives, being in respectful ethical relation involves attempting to understand another’s needs, interests, desires, vulnerabilities, and perspectives. Empathetic individuals imagine themselves in other’s situations while realizing the similarities and differences between them. This is why I feel that all of us should be more empathetic in general as it would help us enhance our own experiences, develop our own moral imagination and also helps us to become more sensitive as human beings overall.

WHY TO NOT EAT ANIMALS

’s Modem Division which required upfront investment. 

’s increased expenditure in the R&D sector and the 

 acquisition is explained with a phase that is becoming known as the “

 has a long-term strategy of owning and controlling the primary technologies behind the products they make. They want to cut third party components from 

 products wherever it makes sense to do so. These primary technologies require a lot of investment. 

 instead of buying off-the-shelf chips from companies like 

 also developed its wireless bluetooth chip which is a key technology behind the company’s 

. This also points towards the growing portfolio of the company. Earlier the company used to develop only one 

. Now they develop three. Earlier they used to develop only one 

 Now they develop multiple models of the 

. All of this contributes to a larger product portfolio, which drives up the R&D costs of the company to develop these programs. 

 also has grand ambitions of expanding its services business over the next few years. This requires a lot of investments in services like 

. The company also recently announced various new services like 

 is also investing in a lot of future products. 

 is reportedly working on self-driving cars and has hired executives from 

 has also invested in augmented reality. It is a technology that uses sophisticated cameras and computers to place digital objects in the real world. Patents around wearables suggest that 

 with biometric sensors. All this tells us that 

 is working big time behind the scenes due to which they have established a dominance in the research and development. It can also be said that maybe 

 is getting realistic by realizing that eventually the market for high-end 

, cannot be sustained by people upgrading every 2 years due to which they are trying to create a market for niche products, like the 

There is no question that the company is a trendsetter. Every product 

 releases sets a bar in its category and many rival companies rush to copy them. 

 from its laptops and mobile phones to its wireless earbuds and watches. 

But why do we see this blind imitation of 

’s design and technology by other companies? 

 revolutionized the technology sector, first with its 

. Both of these products completely changed how we interacted with these technologies and created history. Many youngsters think that 

 was the first multi-touch smartphone. But smartphones have been around for a long time, long before the launch of the 

 in 2007. The reason people think this way is because 

 completely re-imagined smartphones and reshaped the industry almost instantly. As was the case back then, 

 designs continue to shape the industry today. 

 wasn’t the first smartphone to have a notch in the display, the Essential phone was launched before 

 phone maker rushed to copy it. The perceived value of 

 is very high which is a primary factor as to why the world’s most valuable brands are so successful. What makes perceived value so important from a company’s perspective is that customers may be willing to pay a higher price because they deem the brand to be of high quality or status symbol. This gets to the heart of the continued success of 

 dominated the profits earning a reported 66% or almost $8 billion from a total of $12 billion. The iconic status 

 has received among its hardcore fan base explains why they can charge so much more than their rivals. Other companies try to replicate this success enjoyed by 

 by replicating their designs and technologies. 

 has been criticized for not taking enough risks, but if we look closely then we see that removing the headphone jack was a very big risk for 

 which worked in the end and boosted the sales of 

 to have notched display in their phones which also worked in their favor. Many smaller companies like 

, etc cannot afford to take such big risks as they don’t know how the consumers will react. But big risks like these working for 

 encourage smaller companies to go ahead and copy their design and technologies.

We can also say that the ideology that western technology is just better also leads to blind imitation of the company’s designs and technology. We find the biggest example of this in the Asian market which is dominated by companies like 

Articles by Vedant Sharma

WHY TO NOT EAT ANIMALS

Adam’s or Jobs: Apple still Divine

WHY TO NOT EAT ANIMALS

Adam’s or Jobs: Apple still Divine