Arguments For The Murder Of Animals

Many people feel that animal slaughter is immoral. They are outraged that anyone eats meat. They feel that raising animals for human consumption is animal cruelty.

In “The Animals: Practicing Complexity”, the idea of morals and ethics is brought to question. Michael Pollan offers the idea of giving animals a better life before they are killed for food. He depicts a farm where the animals are used as a natural sort of farm machinery that never needs its oil changed and when they are done working can be eaten (Pollan 350). This concept makes killing animals for food morally acceptable. By changing the treatment of the animals before they are killed the suffering aspect is eliminated. It is almost as if people would be able to give the animals a purposeful life before being used as a source of nutrition. The morality and ethics could then be justified. However, this simple idea is more complex then it may

The matters pertaining the animal rights and their suffering for the sake of harvesting their flesh have been an issue with a variety of perspectives. Puppies, Pigs and People, a piece by Alastair Norcross, bring to question the treatment towards livestock and what is immoral about the process. The argument proclaims that since we (humans) do not require meat as part of our diet then the exploit of raising animals for consumption (humanly or not) is immoral. On a counter side of the argument, a philosopher, Carl Cohen, states in his work that animals possess no moral rights thus we have the option to eat them despite if it is immoral or not. In the case of who I believe offers the most optimum solution, I believe Cohen is the most accurate in his summation of animal’s roles in our world. I will argue that people have no obligation to abstain from eating animals, but morally speaking animals should be kept in humane living conditions in order for it to meet our obligations towards these creatures.

Many people who think that the way that we treat animals in the process of raising those for human consumption are wrong never stop, to think what they can do to stop this problem from further occurring. Furthermore, they make impassioned calls for more “humanely” raised meat. Instead to soothe their consciences they shop for “free range” meat, and eggs; which has no importance. Even if an animal is raised ‘free range” it still lives s life of pain and suffering that all ends with a butcher’s knife. Although many know that over 53 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for human utilization they still tend to eat this meat with no problem. The simple explanation is that many don’t care what happens to animals as long as they are eating and healthy. If they did care then they would what could be a difficult choice; to go without eating meat and selling it in any form.

However, if the animals were treated well and were killed painlessly, that would not be morally wrong because, in this case, eating meat is only wrong when the animals are not treated as well as they could be. Singer believes that every sentient being should receive equal consideration, but he is aware that humans and non-human animals do not deserve the same rights because different beings have different interests (Singer 149). An example Singer gives is that it would not be wrong to deny dogs the right to vote because dogs are incapable of understanding the significance of voting, so they cannot have the right to vote, but it would be wrong to deny a dog’s interest in not suffering since dogs have a strong interest in avoiding pain (Singer 149).

The treatment of animals on slaughterhouse farms get treated like they have no use, when they are of great use to humans. Animals should not get treated like they are useless. The workers that treat animals poorly need to be fired. They are being inhumane and unreasonable. Those animals that are suffering are doing it to provide a meal on millions of people’s tables. The way we kill animals makes no sense. Think about being in those animals positions. What would you want to change if people were skinning you alive, or pounding your head to the ground so you’ll die?

Hunting is not a form of animal cruelty because its serves a purpose to the population of certain animals. Animal cruelty is when people force pain on animals which lead them to suffer a slow agonizing death. This is a large moral issue today that just keeps growing into a nationwide problem. For instance, morally humans believe it is okay to harm non-domesticated animals rather than domesticated animals such as our pets. Domesticated animals and non-domesticated animals still have behavioral instincts. A domesticated dog will attack if threatened and a non-domesticated wolf would do the same. Thinking of ourselves as the dominate species is untrue in the state that animals kill other animals for food, just as we as hunters do and anyone who eats animal products. Many will ask what the differences are between hunting, poaching, and true animal cruelty.

Eating animals poses two moral questions. Is it wrong to raise and kill animals simply because humans enjoy the fleeting taste of their flesh? Do our differences from these animals justify their slaughter? The response to both of these questions is simple. Never. Many people believe that their superiority over animals is a justification to eat them. Animals have been traditionally defined as slaves and non-rational beings without moral reasoning, but these beliefs have been refuted for centuries.Even if these claims were true, these differences should encourage more, not less, moral consideration since they gather that animals cannot give or withhold their consent or

In an animal lover’s world , killing an animal is a crime. Animals are innocent .In her article “The Truth about Farm Animals” , former farmer Heather Rose explains, “Animals around the U.S are mistreated every day and we don’t even know about it. They are kept in small cages often with so little space that they can't even turn around or lie down comfortably” (Reno NV). People express that our do these things since, people have rights and animals don't. At the point when people say things like that, it makes me so furious, what has this world come to when we say that animals don't have rights. Is it since they can't talk? Or, on the other hand is it since they are not human and we should regard them as we would a cloth doll. We shouldn't treat animals along these lines regardless, there are better approaches to get the meat at that point by killing it at 5-7 weeks old (chicken) or six months(pigs). I believe that killing animals is pure evil , I mean it's despicable , Animals have lives

Consumers of factory-farmed meat support the mistreatment and suffering of animals on factory farms. It is not that humans and nonhumans should be treated identical, rather that animals ought to have the same basic principle of equality as humans. In “All Animals are Equal,” Peter Singer clarifies “the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration” (Singer, 29). This still begs the question, what makes farm animals worthy of moral consideration? One answer is that animals have the ability to suffer. The capacity for suffering, as Singer suggests, is a “prerequisite for having interests at all” (Singer, 34). Singer asserts “the capacity for suffering and enjoyment is, however, not only necessary, but also sufficient for us to say that a being has interests – at an absolute minimum, an interest is not suffering” (Singer, 34). This claim is entirely plausible, as it is clear that the animals in factory farms have the capacity to suffer. Even so, there is a common

In Peter Singer's article all animals are equal, Peter Singer argues for the moral considerability of animals. His main argument boils down to, we ought to extend to nonhuman animals the same equality of consideration that we extend human beings. Now whether or not eating meat is morally justifiable is a good question. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally justifiable to eat meat, however with the exception of a few alternatives. The immorality of killing an animal for its flesh is morally wrong, for example most of the meat that we consume in urban modern societies is from factory farms. Factory farms employ extremely cruel farming tactics, for example putting up to six chickens in a single cage this gives them barely enough room to move or even open the wings. Chickens for example raised in factory

Over the years the issues of animal cruelty in factory farms has became a major issue, because of the thriving meat industry. The issues regarding animal cruelty are important because it concerns fundamental moral and economic questions in respect to the way animals are treated, before being brutally slaughtered and consumed by americans daily. The topic of animal cruelty raises multiple differing arguments, many concerning religion and a person's geological location in the world. By considering the arguments made by people who believe animal cruelty to be morally acceptable, and researching the verified practices taking place in factory farms today it will be clear that in the United States, factory farming is a cruel and unnecessary practice.

The idea that industrial farming is bad for the environment is well known, but what people do not think about is horrible practice of factory farms within industrial farming. Factory farms are inhumane and not only because the animal is being slaughtered, but because of the way the animals are treated before the are killed. A person would think that if they were to be innocently killed that they would want to be treated with respect and dignity before they die. In this paper, I will argue that animals have rights through a utilitarian view and that they should not be treated in an inhumane way.

Is the killing of animals wrong? This is an issue that is currently being argued. In the world there are people who kill animals to eat them while there are others that feel that it is inhumane to kill defenseless animals. There are many factors over which animals are killed. For example, animals that are suffering due to an illness, animals that have shown to be dangerous around us, for food, and to maintain the animal’s population balanced. Some people have argued that killing animals for food is not the only way to feed ourselves, since we produce vegetation. These people think that animals should have the same rights as humans. People feel this way because they feel that animals feel everything that we feel, such as pain, loss,

“Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” written by Gary Steiner, a philosophy professor at Bucknell University is all about one key argument, “we should re-evaluate the ideas we have inherited from Western philosophy that human animals are morally superior to nonhuman animals.” Steiner does his best to open the eyes of the reader to how he believes that using animals for everything from steak to toothpaste is inhumane and crazy. In this essay I will argue Steiner’s ideas using the response letters that were sent to Steiner as well as my own personal views on the topic. Unlike Steiner, I believe that just because humans are mentally superior to every other animal on the planet, that doesn’t mean that we have to supress our primal instincts in oreder to feel better about ourselves. I believe predation is natural and that god gave us a stomach capable of processing meat and vegetation because that is what we need to live a full and healthy life, and i believe that if god considered murder of animals immoral he wouldnt have put so many predators on the planet.