Killing, Suffering and Callousness; How it Affects the Rights of Non-Intensively Reared Animals

1829 Words 8 Pages
Roger Crisp argues in Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism that humans are morally required to eat meat (Soifer, 35). According to Roger Crisp, Vegetarianism is an immoral act; we are morally obligated to eat meat provided the meat is not from factory farms (Soifer, 35-36). Crisp believes we are able to eat non-intensively reared animals, just so long as the animals live an enjoyable life. However he says, “This is not the case in factory farms” (Soifer, 35). Factory farming consists of multiple animals being brutally killed in order to create food for humans. The treatment an animal will face in factory farms is morally questionable; it is these types of actions of which lead humans to the idea of vegetarianism. Crisp’s definition of …show more content…
Throughout Crisp’s argument against Vegetarianism, he takes a consequentialist view towards non-human animals. The definition of Consequentialism is an “act as so to maximize the positive consequences of your actions while minimizing the negative ones” (Phillips, Jan 10, 2011). Crisp uses this to define the treatment of animals; to maximize non-intensively reared animals while minimizing the treatment they receive in factory farms. The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations, by Joel Feinberg, we “might still deny that animals have rights, even though we admit that they are the kinds of beings that can have rights” (Soifer, p.14). Feinberg believes humans have a responsibility regarding animals (Soifer, p.10). Humans have a moral obligation to protect animals; we do not need to, necessarily, protect their feelings, just their physicality. The idea of animal rights is still under question. According to John Chipman Gray, Animals are considered inflexible and inadaptable, animals cannot be “blamed for what would be called the ‘moral failures’ in human beings” (Soifer, 11) therefore, they cannot not have rights as they cannot have duties and are not considered to be ‘moral agents’ in society (Soifer, 11). Animals are unable to claim their own rights; their rights cannot be enforced or claimed in the court of law (Soifer, 11). However, according to W.D. Lamont,

Related Documents