An argument against raising animals for food and the consideration of the interests and rights of no

Oxford University Press, chapter 3. The Macro Component of Moral Theory There is one more level of moral theory remaining against which we must assess the claim that animal rights theory is "utopian," "unrealistic," or "absolutist.

We must either conclude that not all human beings are equal, or we must conclude that not only human beings are equal. But he does not--and cannot--oppose all animal experimentation because if a particular animal use would, for example, lead directly to a cure for a disease that affected many humans, Singer would be committed to approving that animal use.

Ethics and Animals Clifton, NJ: The bottom line is that eating animals destroys far more insects, plants and animals than eating plant foods directly.

Since animals have no wills at all, they cannot have good wills; they therefore do not have any intrinsic value. Examples of positively valenced episodes of awareness are pleasure, joy, elation, and contentment.

It was only when human sinfulness caused God to curse all creation that He said people would begin eating animals, and this killing was included in a catalog of suffering and tribulations that would henceforth mark the conditions of a downfallen existence.

As I argue below, the reduction of suffering--and not that moral agents should assess what action will most reduce suffering--is certainly what Singer advocates on the macro-level of social and legal change. Some philosophers suggest that rational argumentation fails to capture those features of moral experience that allow us to really see why treating animals badly is wrong.

Arguments for the duty to help others disregard the disposition of the giver and, therefore, fail to consider what is morally relevant about the action.

So if this is what grounds a full and equal moral status, it follows that not all human beings are equal after all. So the fact that we may not be crystal clear on where to draw the line is not a valid reason to inflict suffering on those we know with certainty to be sentient, which includes all of the some 70 billion land animals and one trillion aquatic animals we use for food.

In the Lectures on Ethics he makes it clear that we have indirect duties to animals, duties that are not toward them, but in regard to them insofar as our treatment of them can affect our duties to persons.

And so I changed. According to Singer, we are required to count every similar interest equally in our deliberation. By focusing on interests themselves, Utilitarianism will license the most horrendous actions. There are two points of contention with the above account of rights.

Is it okay to raise and slaughter animals?

In the case of animals, however, the situation is precisely the opposite. That is, agents and patients are conscious, possess a complex awareness, and have a psychophysical identity over time. She writes, what we demand, when we demand … recognition, is that our natural concerns—the objects of our natural desires and interests and affections—be accorded the status of values, values that must be respected as far as possible by others.

However, Regan believes this is clearly unacceptable: Likewise, human beings are superior to animals because human beings have the capacity for using reason to guide their conduct, while animals lack this ability and must instead rely on instinct.

That is, if Singer were able to construct his ideal moral world for animals, animals would be treated in such a way that their treatment would maximize the pleasure and preference satisfaction for all beings who are affected. So if these marginal cases of humanity deserve rights, then so do these animals.

Since animals have no wills at all, they cannot have good wills; they therefore do not have any intrinsic value. extend the equal consideration of interests principle.

Eating Animals: Addressing Our Most Common Justifications

3 to include nonhumans and to his parallel between animals for food. In any event, the animal husbandry A Utilitarian Argument for Vegetarianism. & and and vegetarianism and. to. to & he. The Case Against Raising And Killing Animals For Food.

Authors; Authors and affiliations; Bart Gruzalski; In this paper I develop the classical utilitarian argument against raising and killing animals for food. I then examine this position in light of several arguments which have recently been raised to show that utilitarianism permits this.

Animals and Ethics

Peter Singer, AC; Born: Peter Albert David Singer () 6 () analyzes why and how living beings' interests should be weighed. His principle of equal consideration of interests does not dictate equal treatment of all those with interests, since different interests warrant different treatment.

Similar to his argument for abortion rights.

The Moral Status of Animals

1. The Moral Considerability of Animals. To say that a being deserves moral consideration is to say that there is a moral claim that this being can make on those who can recognize such claims.

What are some good arguments against animal rights? Update Cancel. ad by Honey. The true is that we either eat animals or eat their food. We are fighting for the same resources. The only real argument against animal rights is that no individual, animal or person, deserves rights.

Don’t overcomplicate the term “rights”. Being the subject-of-a-life is the basis for having rights. Therefore, raising animals for food violates their rights. As Gary Francione argues, all sentient beings deserve equal moral consideration of their interests.

Animals and Ethics

The most basic interest is freedom – not to be the property of another. Arguments Against Genetically Engineered Food.

An argument against raising animals for food and the consideration of the interests and rights of no
Rated 5/5 based on 31 review
The Moral Status of Animals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)