Slaughter of animals is regulated by law and because of the growing concern for consideration of animal suffering, the process of stunning has become obligatory in the European Union since 1979 in order to avoid unnecessary suffering. However, most of the member states have made exceptions regarding religious slaughter in order to satisfy the Islamic and Jewish communities and their traditions. In the United-Kingdom, the stunning of animals before slaughter is required to avoid unnecessary pain and is regulated by both European and national law. Stunning is the process of making the animal unconscious before killing in order to avoid unnecessary suffering. The main body responsible for this process is the DEFRA (Development environment food and rural affairs). It is the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933 which first introduced this requirement in England and Wales. Currently, the relevant legislation governing the religious slaughter of animals in national law is the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 with its Schedule 12. Later, the Welfare of Animals at the time of killing (England) Regulations 2013 was brought into force and extended to activities which were not covered by the WASK 1995. The European Regulations 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing is now in force and replaced in 2013 the directive 93/119. All these insure the prohibition of avoidable excitement, pain or suffering by imposing specific methods of killing and licenses to people conducted slaughter who must be trained.
However, the law allows exceptions for religious slaughter . Indeed, it states that the Jewish method of killing called Schechita and the Muslim one called Dhabihah are permitted as long as they avoid un...
... middle of paper ...
... towards them as we can in this process, we must also be respectful of religious freedom. “Slaughter cannot be humane by any method, for slaughter is cruel. And yet, the slaughter of animals being a necessity it must be performed as humanely as possible” .
Bibliography: https://www.gov.uk/farm-animal-welfare-at-slaughter Religious SlaughterStandard Note: SN/SC/1314, Last updated: 11 June 2012, Author: Christopher Barclay, Science and Environment Section library house of commons
Masri, Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad (1993). Animal Welfare in Islam
Foltz, Richard C. (2006). Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures
Religious Slaughter: evaluation of current practices in selected countries, Velarde, A; Rodriguez, P; Dalmau, A…
Government Regulations of Schechita (Jewish Religious Slaughter) in the twenty-first century: are they ethical? Zivotofsky
This serious ebó is done when it is absolutely necessary. At the Santeria Church of the Orishas, we try to find simpler solutions like addimus before resorting to eyebale. Eyebale (Animal Sacrifice) is a legally protected form of religious practice according to the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1993 case of The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. the City of Hialeah. Our church action committee, SAFE – Santeros Against Fraud and Exploitation, takes a strong stance on the ethical treatment of animals prior to sacrifice and adherence to proper ritual slaughter of
Jewry law was, like German medieval law in general, of a disintegrated nature (Kisch 1935: 69). It also frequently overlapped and contradicted itself, thanks to the wide range of sources from which it derived (Cohen 1994:31). Medieval Jewry law has been described as a ‘law of privilege made up of occasional favours and restrictions of various kinds without re...
The Heaven’s Gate religious group is one group in particular that has aroused much controversy in terms of the extent of religious freedom. In 1997, members of this group partook in an infamous mass suicide, claiming thirty-nine lives. There has been an extensive debate as to whether or not the government should have intervened in this group’s practice due to the violence and danger that it obviously posed to its members. However, through the acknowledgment of personal prejudices, an evaluation of coercion, the breadth of violence, legalities, and ethics revolving around this group’s violence, it can be concluded that government involvement in the religious practice of Heaven’s Gate would have been an inappropriate limitation of religious freedom. It would have been legally and morally unjust for the government to prevent the believers of Heaven’s Gate from making independent decisions.
As I have progressed through this class, my already strong interest in animal ethics has grown substantially. The animal narratives that we have read for this course and their discussion have prompted me to think more deeply about mankind’s treatment of our fellow animals, including how my actions impact Earth’s countless other creatures. It is all too easy to separate one’s ethical perspective and personal philosophy from one’s actions, and so after coming to the conclusion that meat was not something that was worth killing for to me, I became a vegetarian. The trigger for this change (one that I had attempted before, I might add) was in the many stories of animal narratives and their inseparable discussion of the morality in how we treat animals. I will discuss the messages and lessons that the readings have presented on animal ethics, particularly in The Island of Doctor Moreau, The Dead Body and the Living Brain, Rachel in Love, My Friend the Pig, and It Was a Different Day When They Killed the Pig. These stories are particularly relevant to the topic of animal ethics and what constitutes moral treatment of animals, each carrying important lessons on different facets the vast subject of animal ethics.
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia. Charlton is also a law professor at Rutgers University and she is the co-founder of the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic. In this article Francione and Charlton mainly focus on persuading people to believe in animal rights but only focus on one right, the right of animals not to be property. The article is written in a well-supported manner with a lot of details and examples backing it up, but a few counter-arguments can be made against some of their arguments.
Temple Grandin once said, “I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we 've got to do it right. We 've got to give those animals a decent life and we 've got to give them a painless death. We owe the animal respect” (Quotes). This quote is one of the countless quotes by Temple Grandin; after her many years of work in slaughter houses and with animals. Everything that happens to animals by humans must be done in a humane and safe way. Farmers are working every single day to make sure all animal slaughtering is done in the most humane matter. In the United States slaughtering practices have strict regulations and many experts like Temple Grandin are advocating for the animals.
In his essay “Religion and Animal Rights," the writer Tom Regan maintains the place that animals are "subjects-of-a-life”, like humans. If we value all beings regardless of the degree of human rationality that are able to act, we must also attribute to animals or as it is called non-human animals as well. All practices involving abuse of animals should be abolished. The animals have an intrinsic value as humans, and stresses that Christian theology has brought unbridled land on the brink of an ecological catastrophe.
Billions of animals are being slaughtered, abused, and harmed every year; causing enormous amounts of pain, suffering and distress upon them. It is wrong for humans to cause extended harm to animals for no compelling reason, for the fact that they have moral statuses. We have obligations to animals, and these are not simply grounded in human interests. However, the issues of moral status and equal consideration are far more fundamental and far-reaching in practical impact as DeGrazia have stated. (38) Animals have as much moral status and rights as humans do, and are most definitely worthy of our consideration in their lives.
...ey are murdering people they had grown up with, the tradition dominates their life and is one of the only things that they know therefore it is necessary to uphold.
In the Islamic conquest, Muslims conquered large areas consisting of distinct religion members. Muslims believed that all religions should be treated respectably; hence Jews and Christians followed ...
While it may it be true that laws influenced by religion can seem harmless, such as not being able to buy alcohol on a Sunday, the reverse is also true. For every situation that seems harmless, is another where someone has committed unspeakable acts in the name of their religion. Not only that,
“Man is the highest rated animal, at least among all the animals who returned the questionnaire (Brault, 2009).” For years humans have been using animals for experimentation, food, clothing, sport and entertainment, manual labor, and let us not forget man’s best friend. The unethical treatment of animals can best be resolved by deontology contrasted with ethical egoism.
Interestingly enough, the moral codes of the world's religions bear a striking resemblance to each other, with only minor variations. Religions as different as Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism all have proscriptions against killing, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. This is not an accident, for reasons we shall explore below.
Throughout the history of the world, there have been subjects of heated debates; there are a few facts that are undisputed. One of the undisputed facts is that animals existed and inhabited the planet before humans did and humans have been dependent on animals for thousands of years. Animals have played a very vital part in our history and one wonders whys should they be treated with much cruelty. While animals have been a great resource, a steady supply of food and clothing and even security, our treatment towards them has become nothing short of appalling. Since humans are dependent on animals for their well being, their comfort and at times their religion, there should be a moral obligation to treat animals.