Why Is It Morally Permissible To Kill Certain Animals

1262 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Animal experimentation ethical treatment

There are many animals that have been introduced into an ecosystem, which have caused many issues to those ecosystems. These animals are called an invasive species, which can cause issues like killing the native species, as well as growing in huge numbers and pushing out the native species that live there, which brings up the question. Is it morally permissible to kill off certain animals in order to preserve an ecosystem? I do believe that is okay to kill certain animals in order to save the animals living in an ecosystem as well as other scientists, but there are a lot of people that believe it is wrong to kill a specific species in an area in order to save the rest of the animals that live there. If we allow that a certain species to harm …show more content…

This can agree with the question to whether it is morally permissible to kill a specific animal, by looking at how it could cause the greatest amount of pleasure, or least amount of suffering to the rest of the animals in an ecosystem. However, one argument against this could be, would that not be causing suffering to the animal that you are killing? Are you supposed to bring about the greatest amount of pleasure to all animals, regardless if they are native or not? Arguing that you would be bringing suffering to the animal that you are killing. Then a person that believes in animal welfare would say, well if the animal that is causing suffering to the other animals in an ecosystem, then it is morally permissible to kill that animal because the little suffering you are causing to this animal, will result in a greater amount of pleasure for the native animal species living in the ecosystems. Allowing the amount of pleasure created, trumping the amount pain you are causing to the invasive species, which the give moral standing to the native species and the invasive species. With, the moral standing toward the native species far outweighs the moral standing of the invasive species, if the amount of pleasure is far greater than the little suffering to the invasive species. People who follow the animal welfare …show more content…

I believe that if an animal that is causing a great amount of suffering to the animals that live in an ecosystem, then it is ok to kill the animal that is causing the suffering. I know that you will be causing pain to a species, but compared to the amount of suffering that would happen to the rest of the animals, this is far less. Another argument against my thought would be how would we be able to in account everyone’s intrinsic value with the animal welfare approach. Showing how if we look at the good of all, then we could possibly end up harming animal with intrinsic value. Instead of looking at what has intrinsic value or not however. What needs to be considered, like mentioned before, is the welfare of the rest of the animals in an ecosystem. If we keep one animals alive due to its intrinsic value, but that animal kill off the rest of the animals in an ecosystem. Then, what about the intrinsic value of the rest of the animals? Which is why I believe that bringing the overall greatest amount of happiness to an entire ecosystem is far greater than worrying about the rights of each animal, even if that means bringing some suffering to an animal species. I believe that we should kill an animal species if it brings a great amount of suffering to an ecosystem, only if it can cause a greater amount of

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of The Heart's Fox By Josephine Johnson

    813 Words  | 2 Pages

    The bond between humans and nature, it is fascinating to see how us has humans and nature interact with each other and in this case the essay The Heart’s Fox by Josephine Johnson is an example of judging the unknown of one's actions. She talks about a fox that had it's life taken as well as many others with it, the respect for nature is something that is precious to most and should not be taken advantage of. Is harming animals or any part of nature always worth it? I see this text as a way of saying that we must be not so terminate the life around us. Today I see us a s experts at destroying most around us and it's sad to see how much we do it and how it's almost as if it's okay to do and sadly is see as it nature itself hurts humans unintentionally

    Read More

  • When is it ever morally permissible to kill and eat animals?

    738 Words  | 2 Pages

    When is it ever morally permissible for human beings to kill and eat animals? This is a question in which its answers have been argued since the early period of stoic philosophy up to now with the “rights view.” Known philosophers, Tom Regan and Epictetus use two different moral theories to defend what is morally permissible. Tom Regan uses the “rights view” moral theory to overcome a situation where our moral obligations have to be overridden making it morally permissible to kill and sometimes eat animals. Epictetus’ stoic philosophy argues that Providence gives nonhuman animals to rational human animals (to do what they wish) making it morally permissible for human beings to kill and eat animals in accordance with nature.

    Read More

  • Trophy Hunting Persuasive Essay

    873 Words  | 2 Pages

    First of all, why do we have the right to kill animals? Who gave us permission to do it? Animals’ lives should be respected like ours, after all we were all created with a purpose. Each one of us has the same right to live because we all form part of what is called “food chain”. For example if we had no grass what would antelopes eat? With no antelopes what would lions eat? And so on. It doesn’t make any sense to me how we are killing them not to survive but to have fun. I don’t think is fair either that because they are under us in the food chain we can do whatever we want with them, equality is for all kinds of creatures. Like Ann Causey, stated in Governor's Symposium on North America's Hunting Heritage in 1992: "Does killing an animal primarily to obtain a trophy demonstrate respect for that anima...

    Read More

  • Argument Against Trophy Hunting

    629 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hunting accidents often injure or kill horses, cows, dogs, cats, hikers, and other hunters.Some hunters mistreat dogs just as the animals they hunt. Dogs who are used for hunting also suffer. They’re often kept chained or penned and denied routine veterinary care such as vaccines and heartworm medication. Some are lost during hunts and never found, and others who are turned loose at the end of hunting season to fend for themselves often die of starvation or get struck by vehicles. Also like other forms of thrilled violence, hunting leads to desensitization(make less sensitive) to the suffering and pain of others. “ A study conducted by Northeastern University and the Massachusetts SPCA found that people who abuse animals are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against humans. The majority of inmates who are scheduled to be executed for murder at California’s San Quentin State Prison “practiced” their crimes on animals, according to the warden.” So my opinion on hunting is that it’s bad but not everyone thinks like me and or care about animals the way that I

    Read More

  • How Do We Justify Killing?

    1462 Words  | 3 Pages

    Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is defined as the pre-meditated or planned taking of a human life by a government in response to a crime committed by that legally convicted person. It has been discussed extensively over the years by many people. There are many reasons to agree or disagree with capital punishment, but the reasons against it completely outweigh the ones that support it. Many of the justifications for affirming the death penalty either do not apply wholly to our justice system, are misunderstood, or just do not make sense. There is no justification for killing other human beings and all of the arguments cannot change this. Since 1976, over one thousand people have been executed by the government.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay About Invasive Species

    440 Words  | 1 Pages

    When you move plants/animals from where they were “causing damage”, it would be very environmentally friendly and can be extremely costly. According to, environmentalscience.org, moving invasive species and bringing and bringing in new plants can alter the habitat (Hill 2018). This means that we shouldn’t move these invasive species since the area will need to readjust. Invasive species can also be very costly. Removing invasive species a lot of our tax money which we could be using for schools, roads, etc (Hill 2018). Thus, leaving the government without funding for schools, roads, medical, care, etc. In conclusion, moving “invasive” plants and animals from the area they were move to is bad for the environment.

    Read More

  • Case-Based Environmental Ethics

    1751 Words  | 4 Pages

    The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.

    Read More

  • Predator Killing

    585 Words  | 2 Pages

    In conclusion predator killing is acceptable and should stay legal for three main reasons: it would control species from overpopulating, it would keep them from destroying farmland and from killing farm animals, and if done legally it won’t lead to any mass killings or extinction of animals. Predator killing has happened over thousands of years and will continue to happen for thousand more, as long as the citizens of america allow it too. People need to get busy killing predators and protecting farm animals who can’t protect themselves.

    Read More

  • Why Don T Animal Rights Matter?

    287 Words  | 1 Pages

    Many people think that animals lives don’t matter. From PETA’s article “Why animal rights” says “Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being’s rights, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’””. Really, just because they didn’t invent corn dogs doesn't mean they don’t matter. Animal rights is about animals being treated better. Just because they don’t have a purpose to humans, doesn't mean that they don’t matter. They wouldn’t be animals if they weren’t alive. And i’m pretty sure you don’t want your life to end for no reason. So wouldn’t animals. Imagine this: you get thrown into this large truck. You get driven to a large

    Read More

  • Benefits Of Xenotransplantation

    1839 Words  | 4 Pages

    Animal rights pertain to the right to live untampered with and free. This is not to be confused with believing animals are of an equal status with humans; however, they do deserve to be given the luxury to live freely as humans do. Killing and experimenting on animals by taking their fur for clothing, flesh for food, and lives for entertainment or research strips the animal of its dignity and happiness. To refute the popular belief that animals do not feel and understand in the way a human does, suffering is a universal feeling that all living creatures feel. Laws put in place to protect animals are only significant for protecting from unnecessary uses. Therefore, as long as a situation is presented the plan may be carried out. Animals are

    Read More

  • Why Is It Okay For Animals To Be Kept In Captivity

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    Is it okay for animals to be kept in captivity? How will they live their life again in the wild? Should zoos release animals into the wild? Animals everywhere are kept in zoos for their whole life and when they are released into the wild, they don’t know how to live their life out in the wild. Although zoos help animals feel better and heal, zoos should not keep animals, because when the animals are released into the wild again, they don't know how to live, eat, or sleep.

    Read More

  • Animal Ethics

    1818 Words  | 4 Pages

    I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A

    Read More

  • Animal Cruelty: The Ethical Theories Of Animal Welfare

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Since God created animals as a resource to humans. That entitles humans to use animals as they wish. Undeniable, we see animals as food. The moment we walk into the grocery store we see their remains. At times, animals are used for fun, humans feel entitled to use them as a sport, and this theory supports the behavior. Similarly, Ag-gag-laws act like the Natural Law Theory. They favor animal cruelty. Billions of animals die because they are only seen as objects of instrumental value. Aristotle said, “Nature exists specifically for the sake of man” (Vaughn 495). Aristotle like Thomas Aquinas, are convinced there is nothing wrong with killing or using animals in any way. To be sure, Aquinas said, “Animal cruelty in itself, is no wrong” (Vaughn 495). Clearly, Natural Law Theory not only aids but also supports

    Read More

  • ANIMAL RIGHTS

    794 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animals have their own rights as do to humans and we should respect that and give them the same respect we give each other. Animals deserve to be given those same basic rights as humans. All humans are considered equal and ethical principles and legal statutes should protect the rights of animals to live according to their own nature and remain free from exploitation. This paper is going to argue that animals deserve to have the same rights as humans and therefore, we don’t have the right to kill or harm them in any way. The premises are the following: animals are living things thus they are valuable sentient beings, animals have feeling just like humans, and animals feel pain therefore animal suffering is wrong. 2 sources I will be using for my research are “The Fight for Animal Rights” by Jamie Aronson, an article that presents an argument in favour of animal rights. It also discusses the counter argument – opponents of animal rights argue that animals have less value than humans, and as a result, are undeserving of rights. Also I will be using “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer. This book shows many aspects; that all animals are equal is the first argument or why the ethical principle on which human equality rests requires us to extend equal consideration to animals too.

    Read More

  • Animal Rights vs Human Rights

    906 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Why Is It Morally Permissible To Kill Certain Animals

Open Document