Ethical Argumentative Analysis

Decent Essays
In the quest to argue if human should become omnivores or vegetarians, there is the ethical argument of animals feeling pain because animals have a soul with a conscience (animism) or because it is the natural response to a living machine. While some may argue that it is a logical reason to think animals do not have a soul, many others argue humans have a superiority complex that exhibit apathy and indifference. By examining the moral stance of animals and practice of raising animals to kill for satisfaction, one will see that it is fine to eat meat since it does not differentiate to a human who is already built to eat meat.
It is impractical to think animals have a soul when predation is a natural behavior that is involuntary. In Aaron Simmons journal, Simmons criticizes Carl Cohen who argues about protecting wildlife. Cohen explains that when a lion is hunting a baby zebra, humans do not intervene because it is Mother Nature taking course. However, Cohen argues humans intervene if the lion ate a human baby (Cohen, 2001, p. 30). On the contrary, Simmons
…show more content…
Morally good reasons are different from good reasons. Specifically, a “good” reason has justification (Hsiao, 2015, p. 279). The basis of morally good reasons are the human principles of what is right. If that is true, one can argue that the pain an animal experiences in a slaughter-house precedes over the interest of animals (Hsiao, 2015, p. 280). It is not morally bad to kill an animal because it succeeds their use as foods. Humans do not intentionally kill animals as an act of cruelty, but the welfare of human interest. The human body is built to digest meat. The nourishment from other forms of food is possible, but not as efficient as meat. Human consumption of meat for the sake of nutrition is a moral welfare (Hsiao, 2015, p. 280). Moreover, eating meat is a personal choice that does not stop animals from experiencing
Get Access