The Controversy: The Killing Of Animals

Did you know around 56 billion animals are killed each year for food alone? With these staggering numbers, could they suggest that the morality of humans should not be intact. Animals are defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “any such living thing other than a human being or plant” but should animals be treated equally? Animal rights establish that animals should be entitled to the same treatment as humans (such as freedom) to prevent abuse and exploitation. The reasoning and foundation behind animal rights was spoken by philosopher Jeremy Bentham in 1789, “…the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Since animals are capable of suffering, animal rights should protects animals from medical

Eating animals is normal for any carnivore, but abuse to these animals is unacceptable. There are religions and traditions when it comes to eating and killing animals, usually to be viewed sacred and not like they are nothing. Humans have morals and traditions that separate barriers with farm animals and pets.

With this said I put this question to you. What gives us the right, as animals, to brutally abuse and kill other animals in the name of science and the selfish preservation of our own species? Especially when there are alternative methods available to us that don’t require the death of innocent animals.

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

“Hormone-free”, “organic”, “grass-fed”, and “natural” are labels that animal and plant producers use to inform consumers of what they are eating. These claims are misleading and usually increase the prices of those products. By increasing the price and sticking a label that reads “natural” makes consumers think that this product is better for them. Animal Welfare Approved gives an example of an egg carton boasting the statement that its eggs are “natural.” This statement can legally come from an industrial farm where the hens do not forage the way a chicken does “naturally.” According to the USDA, farms have to get organic certifications and accreditations in order to sell, label, and represent their products as organic. It is difficult to

No doubt that Animals go through the same pain and suffer like humans, at the same time do not get the same treatment. I think killing and murdering animals is morally wrong. Therefore, we should assess the animal feelings before hunting them for food. For instance, hunting a deer that delivered a newborn, and leaving the young alone

There was once a young boy that would start his days beforehand by cleaning his rifle. His dad will tell him that the time he spent cleaning his rifle doesn’t usually take that long, but to him it was the preparation, the anticipation, that was the most exciting part. He will set up a practice range behind his house and tack up an old camouflage jacket to aim right at the top of the button. He wanted to be optimum for when the real hunt begun. To him hunting season was the best part of the year. As he will look at his target through his rifle sight, he felt communication with him, “here we are together, bound as one in this wonderful moment of life and death.” In a second, a life of an animal will be taken away for a spiritual feeling that

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

The study of good and bad, right and wrong, moral principles or value held by a person or society, promoting human welfare, maximizing freedom minimizing pain and suffering is called ethics. The discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings and also the value and moral status of the environment and its non-human contents is called environmental ethics. It considers the ethical relationship between the humans and the environment. Animal and animal rights are the highlighted topic in the environmental ethics.

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 slaughtering is the killing of animals; most of them domestic, and mainly for the purpose of human consumption. Many different types of animal slaughtering methods have been created such as; carbon dioxide, inert gas hypoxia, captive bolt pistol, gunshot, exsanguination, and many other that are not regulated. Such varying methods have evolved since the beginning of times, but with the increasing rates of the human population a faster way of slaughtering needed to be created in order to keep up. The question here is, have we, in our attempt to provide for the many, forgotten about ethical ways to kill those that are gifting us with their life?

This brings up an argument that can at first be seen to agree with animal rights but at closer inspection violates the idea behind it. Hunting has always been a part of human existence, especially here in Montana. I have always thought I was being a good animal rights supporter by hunting. This feeling came from the knowledge of what goes on in places that raise animals in order to mass-produce hamburger and store sold meats. I have always felt I was being fair to the animal by giving it a life outside of captivity and cruel conditions. Yet in order for there to be total animal rights we would have to abolish hunting. Each and every animal has the right to live and we have no right to decide when that life is to end. Doing so only implies that they are inferior to us. But aren't there a great many people that are inferior to others. Does that mean we have the right to hunt them for pleasure, sport and food? Almost all of society would say definitely not! But what is it that makes the animal life so much less valuable than that of a human.

Many animals all across the United States of America, such as pigs, chickens, turkeys, and cattle, are being slaughtered food in manmade factories with more than inadequate conditions provided while raising these animals. It is a moral outrage what is being done each day. Ethically there is an argument that is long lasting through years of philosophers and ethicists studies which continuously brings about the question is it morally and ethically okay for humans to annihilate other species for their own benefit. And if so is it morally right for these animals to be kept in inhumane conditions until they are slaughtered. Three ethicists with influential reasoning and intense thought and research have claimed what they believe is morally acceptable. Rene Descartes claims that animals are not conscious beings therefor one should not feel morally bad for the slaughter of animals in farms since they aren’t aware of actions happening around them. Descartes presented this claim in the 17th century and it was the first recorded argument one had against animals being conscious (Inter). The next ethicist that makes good argument for the murder of animals is Immanuel Kant. Kant claims animals are un-able to perform acts of good will. Therefor animals do not have intrinsic value so it isn’t wrong to murder animals (Inter). Peter Singer is another ethicist that makes a good argument on why we should feel morally wrong in the murder of millions of animals. Singer claims that