’There is nothing wrong with rearing and killing animals for consumption ’.
Eating animals involves many aspects that may not be morally right. Philosophers may take into account violated rights, interests, human interests vs animal interests, rights argument and virtue ethics. Eating animals poses mainly two problems- is it wrong in principle to raise and kill animals so that human beings can eat meat and fish or Does it stop being wrong if the process involved are carried out humanely? These are two important questions philosophers debate on. This essay will focus on why raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong.
Firstly the fact that killing and rearing animals for human consumption means that their rights are violated. As animals raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself. It is being treated as a means to human ends and not as an end to itself. No matter how human key an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing …show more content…
Violated interests explain that even the most humane forms of preparing and killing animals for food nearly almost violates the animals most basic interest which is to predominantly keep living. Modern agriculture often violates other key animal rights/ interests as well; to live in natural or decent conditions, to make free choices, to be free from fear again, to live healthy lives without needing medical interventions, to eat a natural diet and to enjoy the normal/social/family/community life of its spaces .
The argument for human interest vs animals interests can be made invalid as humans don’t need to eat meat in order to survive whereas if you kill animals for meat you are permanently killing them. Animals are essentially like us so do deserve to have their interests heard. Human interest in this case is classed as trivial because human beings don’t need to eat meat in order to
Eating animals involves many aspects that may not be morally right. Philosophers may take into account violated rights, interests, human interests vs animal interests, rights argument and virtue ethics. Eating animals poses mainly two problems- is it wrong in principle to raise and kill animals so that human beings can eat meat and fish or Does it stop being wrong if the process involved are carried out humanely? These are two important questions philosophers debate on. This essay will focus on why raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong.
Firstly the fact that killing and rearing animals for human consumption means that their rights are violated. As animals raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself. It is being treated as a means to human ends and not as an end to itself. No matter how human key an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing …show more content…
Violated interests explain that even the most humane forms of preparing and killing animals for food nearly almost violates the animals most basic interest which is to predominantly keep living. Modern agriculture often violates other key animal rights/ interests as well; to live in natural or decent conditions, to make free choices, to be free from fear again, to live healthy lives without needing medical interventions, to eat a natural diet and to enjoy the normal/social/family/community life of its spaces .
The argument for human interest vs animals interests can be made invalid as humans don’t need to eat meat in order to survive whereas if you kill animals for meat you are permanently killing them. Animals are essentially like us so do deserve to have their interests heard. Human interest in this case is classed as trivial because human beings don’t need to eat meat in order to