Famous Arguments Against Animal Rights

1791 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Moral debates of euthanasia

Karianna Rodriguez
Professor Haley Mathis
PHI130-R – Contemporary Moral Issues
5 May, 2015
Animal Rights: All Animals Are Equal
Fred, a man who used to torture puppies in his basement, received a visit from the police one day. They found that he had more than twenty cages with puppies inside; many of them showed signs of torture. Fred performed a series of mutilation to them such as slicing their noses and paws with a hot knife. Once the police discovered what he was doing, they fairly charged him with animal abuse. At his trial, he explained that he was in a car accident which resulted in a head trauma affecting his Godiva gland, the one that is responsible for the secretion of cocoamone, the hormone that makes people able to taste chocolate. …show more content…

Every time one goes to a supermarket, one can perceive how different types of meat are sold every day. This paragraph will describe the most famous ideas used by those persons who think there is nothing wrong about eating and killing animals. One of the most famous arguments is called the Survival Argument. This argument starts with the idea that it is necessary for humans to kill and eat animals for survival; for example, humans need meat in order to have a good nutrition and humans need to kill animals to make clothes. Whatever is necessary for survival is morally permissible. So, killing and eating animals is morally permissible. This argument has a clear point: if killing animals is the only way humans have to be healthy, it should be okay to do so. One has to do whatever it takes to be alive and to be healthy. Another strong argument is the morality argument. It says that only beings with a sense of morality have rights. But, non-humans animals do not have a sense of morality. Therefore, non-human animals do not have rights. If animals do not know what is right or wrong, why should one worry about killing and eating them? Animals taste good and they may be necessary for one’s health; if they do not know what is right or wrong, we should not worry about it

Show More
Related

  • The Case for Animal Rights

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    "The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.

    Read More

  • Final Essay: Animal Ethics in Animal Narratives

    1567 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Vegetarianism and Meat Eating in Food Culture

    1924 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham's Theory Of Utilitarianism And Nonhuman Animals

    1268 Words  | 3 Pages

    What do we, as humans have to do in order to give nonhuman animals the proper treatment and equal moral consideration as we owe for other humans? Some, such as Jeremy Bentham would address that, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (99). Other moral philosophers, like Henry Sidgwick, however reject the theory of utilitarianism thinking that is pleasure all that really matters and are consequences all that matters (111-112)? Humans use nonhuman animals for one purpose; pleasure from using their skins for luxury goods. In this paper, I will explain and examine what Jeremy Bentham is trying explain in his argument, and will attempt to show that his argument is a plausible one, by replying an objection against his utilitarian view.

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Factory Farming: Alastair Norcross's Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases

    918 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Alastair Norcross’ paper, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” he describes a situation in which a man, Fred, has lost his ability to enjoy the gustatory pleasure of chocolate due to a car accident. However, it is known that puppies under duress produce cocoamone, the hormone Fred needs in order to enjoy chocolate again. Since no one is in the cocoamone business, Fred sets up twenty six puppy cages, and mutilates them resulting in cocoamone production in the puppy’s brains. Each week he slaughters a dog and consumes the cocoamone. When he is caught, he explains to the judge and jury that his actions are no different from factory farming because he is torturing and killing puppies for gustatory pleasure similar to how factory farms torture and kill cows, chickens, etc. for other people’s gustatory pleasure. You, the reader are meant to think that this is unacceptable, and therefore, denounce factory farming. Although there are many valid objections to this argument, I am in agreement with Norcross and shall be supporting him in this paper. I think the two most practical objections are that (1) most consumers don’t know how the animals are treated whereas Fred clearly does, and (2) if Fred stops enjoying chocolate, no puppies will be tortured, but if a person becomes a vegetarian, no animals will be saved due to the small impact of one consumer. I shall explain the reasoning behind these objections and then present sound responses in line with Norcross’ thinking, thereby refuting the objections.

    Read More

  • Alastair Norcross: The Marginal Case

    1872 Words  | 4 Pages

    Alastair Norcross introduces a very controversial case. He compares the actions of Fred as being morally equal to factory farming. Norcross presents the Marginal case and the Analogy argument. There are many objections to his beliefs such as; the suffering of the puppies is intended as a means to Fred’s pleasure, whereas the suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side effect of a system that is a means to the gustatory pleasure of millions. Also, the individual consumers lack the power to put an end to factory farming. And lastly, human beings have a greater moral status than nonhumans. (Norcross, 285) I disagree with Norcross’s statement saying that Fred’s behavior and that of people who consume factory-farmed meat is morally equivalent.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of An Animal Place By Michael Pollan

    1023 Words  | 3 Pages

    Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical

    Read More

  • Outline The Argument Against Moral Veganism

    1510 Words  | 4 Pages

    In this essay I will argue that it is morally permissible to eat meat on the grounds that all humans possess something which animals do not, a root capacity for rationality. Before I criticise what is wrong with the argument presented by moral veganism, I want to briefly outline the appropriate argument. Sentience is defined as the ability to feel both suffering and joy (Jaworska, 2013§ 4.3). Singer claims that animals should be given “equal consideration” on the basis that animals have sentience, thus they have interests (Singer, 1989). Since animals can experience suffering, they have an interest in not being tortured, since they will experience pain if they are (Singer, 1989).

    Read More

  • The Eating Meat Has Been A Part Of American Culture

    1130 Words  | 3 Pages

    Although most Americans love to enjoy a juicy steak or a rack of ribs, some people strongly believe that killing animals to eat their meat is not ethical. Humans should eat meat because it has essential health benefits, we are designed to be able to eat it, and we would not be the people we are today if it hadn’t been for our early ancestors introducing it into our diets. Well prepared meat might seem like it’s too tasty to be healthy. In reality, it has many health benefits to humans.

    Read More

  • Eating Meat Is Wrong Research Paper

    1798 Words  | 4 Pages

    Eating Meat Is Not Wrong? Killing animals for human consumption is not wrong because animals lack conscious thought. Animals themselves have no moral standing only their interest do. Animals do not have ambitions or dreams. In my opinion, I have never believed that animals have the same worth of life as humans.

    Read More

  • Why Eating Meat is Morally Impermissible

    1449 Words  | 3 Pages

    Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the treatment of animals, the environmental argument, animal rights, pain, morals, religion, and the law.

    Read More

  • Ethical Arguement For Animal Rights

    1063 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thesis Statement Many people love dogs. They keep us company, help us with our careers and help the disabled with their daily. Although it is debatable of what kind of rights animals have. Ethics Experts have debated about animal rights for years. Some experts say that animals have limited moral rights while others say that they do not have any rights at all.

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Animal Cruelty

    1409 Words  | 3 Pages

    Animal Cruelty In recent discussions of food practices, a controversial topic that is being argued is whether or not consuming animals as a source of food is morally correct. We seem to pass up the fact that that burger from McDonald’s and those chicken nuggets from Wendy’s came from a living and breathing animal, just as we are. As a society we never think about the animals lives that are being taken away. In order for us humans to consume the meat from these animals, they must be slaughtered first.

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Animal Research

    1020 Words  | 3 Pages

    The rights and morals of humans and animals have been debated over for hundreds of years, but human should always come before other species. Many philosophical

    Read More

  • Simple Arguments Against Animal Rights

    812 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animal Rights Animal rights are not a priority, but it should be a priority. When people look at these animals they do not think about killing them or making them suffer. Many people see their animals as family. So why are other people treating animals so unfair? I’m proanimal rights and here are three simple argument that animal rights should be a law: in the consequences of animal rights, the case for animal rights and, no use of animals for hard labour on animal rights.

    Read More

More about Famous Arguments Against Animal Rights

Open Document