The theory or idea that animal has rights comes from the rights that are traditionally moral and politically correct rights is a virtue from the type of culture that we are. Animal liberation comes from the utilitarian tradition that comes from ethics and mortality as coming about as a result of pleasure and/or pain, as someone’s overall well-being. When animals are caged harvest, this diminishes their well-being, which gives us the mortality that we address their decreased well-being and prescribes to us to liberate
In the article, “Against Meat,” author Jonathan Safran Foer discusses the moral level of eating meat, which is included in many diets in most people in America. He notes that as a child he loved the food that was prepared by his grandmother, who he considered as the best chef in the family. Furthermore, he also talks about the occasions like family gathering, all that he use to eat is meat (burger). Despite eating of meat mostly during family occasions, Foer decided to stop eating meat but rather eat more vegetables rather than eating all these meat foods. In addition, Foer himself writes “According to the U.S.D.A data by the advocacy group Farm Forward, factory farms now produce more that 99 percent of animals”.
I, like Mary Midgley, agree with Peter Singer in that humans should not harm or be cruel to animals if it is not completely necessary. I agree with his argument regarding animals being used for cosmetic testing and medical testing, and with his argument against harsh factory farming practices, but I find his moral argument against the use of animals for food questionable. I believe meat-eating as a dietary practice for all of humankind is justifiable. Peter Singer implies that humans and non-humans are equal in more ways than many people like to recognize, but one thing he fails to acknowledge is that humans and non-humans also share a shared instinct for survival.
One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).
In the article, Timothy Hsiao begins with an outline of one school of thought of vegetarians that it is morally wrong to eat meat because of the pain caused in the killing of animals and that eating meat is unessential to survival. Hsiao then establishes his argument that even though eating meat may not be necessary, our “nutritional interests” are a valid enough reason to kill animals. The following section argues that sentience is only a relevant consideration in association with sufficient moral standing and that because animals are not part of the human “moral community,” they have no moral standing and therefore, their pain is a “non-moral” welfare interest, trumped by the “moral” welfare interests of humans (Hsiao).
Peter Singer, in his “Equality for Animals” and Tom Regan in his “The Case for Animal Rights,” both form strong arguments on the rights towards animals and the complete elimination on using animals as a means of resources. (Regan, 893) Although both conclude with the fact that animals deserve respect and should not be looked at merely as property, they approach this view differently. The main difference found in their arguments is Regan’s description of inherit value, and Singer’s referral to Utilitarianism. Singer focuses more on the expansion of Utilitarianism claiming that this maximum happiness should include the lives of animals as well.
Growing up with a pescetarian mother (eating no meat other than fish) and omnivore father has not been the easiest of tasks. My mother likes to think she is holier-than-thou because of her diet, while my father just sits and laughs in the corner while eating a stack of ribs. When I read Alan Richmands excerpt “Fork It Over: My Beef with Vegans” I identified with his experiences with vegans because they were what I had experienced with my pescetarian mother over the years. Despite non meat eaters trying to convert meat eaters through persistent ranting, describing in great detail how the animals are raised and slaughtered (guilt tripping), and by trying to demonstrate that food made without animal products can taste just as good as those made with animal products a person can still make the decision to eat meat and enjoy it.
In my synthesis essay, the three selected readings, “Equality for Animals” by Peter Singer, “You Can’t Run away on Harvest Day” by Barbara Kingsolver, and “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” by Gary Steiner, will answer the following question; What does it mean to eat ethically? What moral principles should guide our food choices and ways of eating? Between these three essays, they all made emphasis on how ethical eating is defined as sourcing food and eating it in ways that will not cause damage or injuries, neither physically nor mentally, to the food or the eater. Recently, people have expressed interest in where the meat and dairy they are consuming comes from and how it was raised.
Introduction Animals exist on the borderline of our ethical concepts, despite forming a large part of the environment around us. Whether we tend to feel outraged about the treatment of an animal depends on how ‘cute’ the animal is. Take the example of the Dog Meat festival in China, which raised a huge outcry on social media when people learnt about it. These are the same people who have no problems eating cows and pigs. This hypocrisy exists because we generally don’t tend to think much about animal ethics.
Animals lives are just as important and valuable as humans. One website called SIRS Issues Researcher says “Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering” Website evidence also states “If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as dinner” This evidence supports the claim in three ways. One way is that the evidence makes some people picture animals
In today’s world, there is a division among the people in the world regarding whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. After researching about eating meat and vegetarianism, I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed ethical to eat meat in today’s society. Sure, eating meat might have its drawbacks, but I have found that the benefits of eating meat far outweigh the negatives of eating it. Eating meat not only helps improve people’s health, but it also helps strengthen our economy and it has little difference in the environmental impact that involves in the farming of vegetables. Eating too much of anything usually results in a negative outcome.
In all, a case made for a middle ground in animal rights. First is the idea that animals should continue to be used as a human food source,
Animal Rights “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” (Immanuel Kant). Animals play a necessary role in human life, whether you love them, hate them, try to save them or enjoy eating them. They provide us food, clothes materials, and we can use them for transportation.
One could say that we as human-beings could make the choice to abolish animal suffering by finding alternative sources of nutrients found in meats and standing up for animal rights. However, utilitarian’s believe that if the slaughtering of animals for resources benefits more species then that is the action that needs to be taken. If laboratory experiments on animals provides better health for the greater amount of people, then that is a justifiable action. “When given a choice between two acts, utilitarianism states that the act that should be chosen is the one that creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people” (Mosser, 2013). Another utilitarian may choose to inflict suffering on animals because his/her need for their resources outweighs the need for the animals pleasure.
Although human life is not less valuable than any others so as animal life. Animals must have full moral status just like humans. “All who have inherent value have it equally, whether they be human animals or not.” Furthermore, in the rights view it’s not tolerate anyone from discrimination, and this theory is for both
