The Ethics Of Eating Animals

1725 Words 7 Pages
What do you think of the relationship between human and animals? Does human have the right to treat animals as our resources? Is it morally permissible for us to eat them? Many people believe that animals are important resources for human, such as being our food, using for scientific experiments and working for us. We obtain various benefits from animals, but it brings a lot of suffering to them. For example, the demand of meat is increasing, more and more animals are living in a poor environment and treating badly. Some of the people said that animals have the right and human should treat them better. It leads to the debate of ethic of eating animals. This essay discusses the arguments of eating animals. The arguments classify into different …show more content…
One of the arguments is that humans have been eating animals in the evolutionary process. The digestive systems of human use to absorb the important nutrition found in meat. Humans have teeth, which is designed to eat meat. Therefore, it is able to eat meat. The argument is logical, but it may not be true. Another argument shows that humans have a higher position and they are stronger than animals. It is able for human to use the weaker for food. Also, eating meat is a natural ability of human. These two arguments demonstrate that human can eat animals because of the capability. However, people have the ability to do something does not mean that we should do it. For example, we have the ability to kill others, but it is wrong and not acceptable for us to do it. Moreover, the argument allows us to eat human. Does it mean that we can eat human? Why can we eat animals but not human? If it is not wrong to eat animals because of the natural ability, human should be treated as animals since both have the same instincts. But, humans are not only having natural ability, they also have knowledge and ability that animals do not have. Those human characteristic reflect that we can be able to consider on what we should do and not to do. The capacity of doing something does not provide an adequate and ethical reason for us to do …show more content…
One of the arguments is that some people thought that human and animals are different because human can question their action, but animals cannot. Therefore, animals do not have intrinsic worth or rights. Another one is that humans are clever and rational, but animals are not. Therefore, human have the right to use animals as food. Apart from animals, baby, comatose and mentally disabled persons are also not to be able to interrogate their action and do not have any rational mind. Does it mean that we can eat them? According to ethical consideration, baby, comatose and mentally disabled persons are given extension rights. People will not eat them and harm them. Nevertheless, why animals do not have the extension rights? How can we know that animals cannot question their action? Through some of the experiments, people know that animals can think and ever more clever than human. If the arguments are right, those intelligent animals can eat human. If the arguments are wrong, there will be no reason for human to eat

Related Documents