Animal rights theorists argue that our moral consideration for a living being must rest exclusively on its intrinsic properties — the notion of moral individualism.
I explained earlier that accepting such an idea would imply our use of human or animal remains for an art project in school would be equivalent to using play-dough or collage paper — all of these items being inanimate objects with no interests of their own.
Such hypothetical scenario became a reality when Dutch artist Bart Jansen used his dead, pet cat, Orville, to build a flying helicopter. People gathered and chanted Orville’s name as the dead cat took off for the firs time.
Of course, animal rights activists that subscribe to moral individualism are not expected to object to such use of the cat but, as it turns out, the opposite was the case.
Animal rights activists showed their displeasure of his work by writing “Kill the animal killers” and “Shame” in graffiti letters on the side of the RAI convention center, which hosted the fair where Jansen was displaying his piece. The Dutch Party for the Animals plans to file a complaint to the festival organizers. And according to festival organizer Liesbeth Hemelrijk “[…] people declare him [Jansen] the worst person in the country.”
This is a very clear illustration of how morally confused animal rights activists are. They subscribe to the notion of “moral individualism” which they use to challenge scientists on their use of animals in biomedical research, but when it comes to applying the same concept to their own behavior they fail miserably.
Speaking of Research 
Hi Mr. darioringach:
There’s no moral confusion at all. Try marketing a new line of discarded embryonic stem cell soup. Hey man, it’s cool. It’s been checked for transmissible diseases (and likely exceeds USDA standards). So why not ? No objections from the bible thumpers, right ? It’s already dead.
Not sure I follow… What are you trying to argue here?