Vani Kumar
PHI1010 Monday Afternoon Class
Term Paper: Ethics and Philosophy of Religion “Animals or Food?” There is a question as to whether it is morally permissible to use animals for scientific experiments, factory farming, or organic farming. The moral criteria of two ethical theories, Specific Deontology and Mill’s Utilitarianism (Act Utilitarianism and Social Utilitarianism) will be used to discuss the morality of using animals in these practices. There are many scientific studies, researches, and experiments from history that animals have been a part of. Even right now, there are millions of animals, including dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, and others locked in cages in laboratories who are in pain and are longing to be free. …show more content…
It is typically a farm on which a large number of livestock is raised in cramped, disease-ridden conditions before they are slaughtered. The mistreatment and slaughtering of animals for human consumption is not only inhumane, but also morally wrong. According to Kant’s Specific Deontology, if everyone were to use animals for human consumption, animals could potentially go extinct. If all animals are cramped into tiny places to produce products for humans, then humans might end up taking their lives away. Although this practice does bring happiness to some people because the results are producing food for human beings to live off of, it brings a greater amount of suffering for people and animals since this food is coming from another living being. I believe the suffering outweighs the happiness, according to Mill’s Act Utilitarianism, concluding that it is morally wrong. Mill’s Social Utilitarianism could justify that it is moral since this food is for the well-being and public interest of citizens. Animals being used for food helps humans for more generations and not die out, which is a long-term effect, could be higher in moral value for Mill’s Social …show more content…
They were created just like humans and deserve the same respect and love humans have for each other. In fact, animals treat others better than humans treat themselves. Animals don’t kill each other or eat each other, unlike humans who find any reason to kill each other. Animals should be given rights to roam free on their own and not be bothered by humans. Humans are constantly tearing down trees and forest, which are home to these animals. I believe they should be left alone to live their own lives. They don’t come out and bother us or destroy our homes, so what right do we have to destroy theirs? Most of these ethical theories are similar to my belief, mostly Mill’s Act Utilitarianism. Animal’s suffering is far more devastating then human’s little happiness from meat products. They should be allowed to be free on their own, just as how free we
PHI1010 Monday Afternoon Class
Term Paper: Ethics and Philosophy of Religion “Animals or Food?” There is a question as to whether it is morally permissible to use animals for scientific experiments, factory farming, or organic farming. The moral criteria of two ethical theories, Specific Deontology and Mill’s Utilitarianism (Act Utilitarianism and Social Utilitarianism) will be used to discuss the morality of using animals in these practices. There are many scientific studies, researches, and experiments from history that animals have been a part of. Even right now, there are millions of animals, including dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, and others locked in cages in laboratories who are in pain and are longing to be free. …show more content…
It is typically a farm on which a large number of livestock is raised in cramped, disease-ridden conditions before they are slaughtered. The mistreatment and slaughtering of animals for human consumption is not only inhumane, but also morally wrong. According to Kant’s Specific Deontology, if everyone were to use animals for human consumption, animals could potentially go extinct. If all animals are cramped into tiny places to produce products for humans, then humans might end up taking their lives away. Although this practice does bring happiness to some people because the results are producing food for human beings to live off of, it brings a greater amount of suffering for people and animals since this food is coming from another living being. I believe the suffering outweighs the happiness, according to Mill’s Act Utilitarianism, concluding that it is morally wrong. Mill’s Social Utilitarianism could justify that it is moral since this food is for the well-being and public interest of citizens. Animals being used for food helps humans for more generations and not die out, which is a long-term effect, could be higher in moral value for Mill’s Social …show more content…
They were created just like humans and deserve the same respect and love humans have for each other. In fact, animals treat others better than humans treat themselves. Animals don’t kill each other or eat each other, unlike humans who find any reason to kill each other. Animals should be given rights to roam free on their own and not be bothered by humans. Humans are constantly tearing down trees and forest, which are home to these animals. I believe they should be left alone to live their own lives. They don’t come out and bother us or destroy our homes, so what right do we have to destroy theirs? Most of these ethical theories are similar to my belief, mostly Mill’s Act Utilitarianism. Animal’s suffering is far more devastating then human’s little happiness from meat products. They should be allowed to be free on their own, just as how free we