Is it ever morally permissible for human beings to kill and eat animals?
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.
The Rights View:
In accordance with the “rights view” moral theory, since human beings are capable of moral obligations, they have a prima facie moral obligation not to kill animals and since animals are incapable of understanding moral obligation, the animals have a prima facie moral right to live (Lehman). Prima facie is a term used when a view is considered as correct until proven otherwise. The “rights view” however does not say that humans can never kill animals. In fact, under certain conditions, prima facie moral obligations can be overridden making it morally permissible for human beings to kill animals.
In a condition known as the “lifeboat situation” a choice must be made whether to override any animal’s rights. Tom Regan uses the lifeboat situation to argue in favor of the condition to override any animal’s rights. An example of the lifeboat situation Regan defends is a ship at sea capsizes and four humans and one dog...
... middle of paper ...
... status of animals.
4. Regan, Tom. Defending Animal Rights. Urbana: U of Illinois, 2001. Print.
a. Tom uses the “rights view” to defend animal rights. He argues the ethical theories of Direct and Indirect Duties, Perfectionism,
Despotism, Contractarianism, Kantianism (Thomas Aquinas), and
Utilitarianism.
5. Visak, Tatjana. Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics. N.p.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.
a. Tatjana uses two versions of utilitarianism as a moral theory to explore the moral issues of animal husbandry. One version can morally justify that routine killing of animals is wrong and the other version can morally justify a need for stronger protection of
animals.
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
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...
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.
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why do so many people loathe blood, and why can so few people easily kill and slaughter animals, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche.
Wyckoff, Jason, and M.A Bertz. "The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? - By Gary L. Francione & Robert Garner." Journal of Applied Philosophy 28.4 (2011): 414-16. Print.
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.
Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.
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
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).
In Tom Regan’s article “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs,” he explores three different philosophical “accounts” and talks about their view and stances on animal rights and the treatment of animals. The first account that Regan looks at is the Kantian account, which is that humans have obligations to treat animals right only because if humans treated animals poorly it would lead to humans treating one another poorly. Regan says this account to be amiss because it makes us assume that animal interests do not matter and that we are not concerned with the poor treatment of the animal, yet instead we are concerned with the effect the action will have on humans in the future. The second account that Regan analyzes is the cruelty account, which revolves
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A
Animal rights have unequivocally been a major concern amongst humans for some time now. Animal rights are based on the notion that non-human animals should be allowed to live freely: free from abuse and suffering, as humans are. The extreme issue amongst humans is whether or not non-human animals have the capacity for rationality to deserve such equal consideration. When examining the issue of animal rights, one may have come to question one’s psyche on whether or not animal rights are ethical.
In the end, the debate over the ethics of hunting an animal for food will go on. A Utilitarian would argue the harm to the human is greater than the harm to the animal so hunting is justified. Deontologists would argue that animals are mere things and that intent to feed yourself or your family makes it justifiable. Yet, Tom Regan and Pete Singer believe that eating an animal is not justifiable. So where does that leave us? In the end, it is each person’s choice to hunt and that living with the consequences of that choice
In 1842 a tragedy occurred when a ship struck an iceberg and more than thirty passengers piled onto a rescue boat that was meant to hold a maximum of seven people. As a storm became evident and water rushed into the lifeboat, it was clear that in order for anyone to survive the load would need to be lightened. The commanding captain suggested that some people would need to be thrown overboard in order for anyone to survive. There was a great argument on the boat between the captain and the passengers who opposed his decision. Some suggested that the weakest should be drowned, as miles of rowing the lifeboat would take toll on even the strongest. This reasoning would also make it absurd to draw names of who should be thrown over. Others suggested that if they all stayed onboard no one would be responsible for the deaths, although the captain argued he would be guilty if those who he could have saved perished in the process. Alternatively the captain decided that the weakest would be sacrificed in order to save the few left on the lifeboat. Days later the survivors were rescued and the captain was put on trial for his virtues.