The Moral Theories Of Normative Ethics

If animals are provided with better accommodation at slaughter houses and provided a merciful, humane death, I would the ethical theory of Utilitarianism to justify my views. Utilitarianism refers to the morally right action that produces the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered” (Pg. 69). As I mentioned above, I can’t change people’s way of life or their dietary habits so in this case best would be to make changes in slaughterhouse practices and looking for the best option for both

Normative ethical subjectivism is an ethical stance that attempts to specify circumstances under which an action is morally right or wrong using four distinct arguments that try to prove this claim. Normative ethical subjectivism claims that an act is morally right if, and only if, the person judging the action approves of it. Stemming form this view on ethics a normative ethical theory has been made. An ethical theory is a theory of what is right and wrong. This stance on ethics is the opposite of another ethical stance called methethical antirealism. Methethical antirealism is centered on the idea that because there is no right and wrong actions, just personal preferences there is no such thing as morality. It also states that morals are

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

Peter Singer is a utilitarian, so his belief is that humans should do what maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. He believes that eating meat is speciesist because it sacrifices the major interests of non-human animals (to not die) for the minor interests of humans (to enjoy the taste of meat). Singer claims that any being that has the capacity for suffering should be given the right to equal consideration, and so people should stop eating meat because animals have an interest in avoiding suffering. He claims that we should avoid killing animals for food except when it is necessary for survival.

The life of prisoners some may never know. There are those who care not to know what goes on behind that wired fence. We find that some people that are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. Some people would rather turn their heads to what actually happens in a prison institution, because they feel it is no concern of theirs. Innocent women and men face a disaster in life when they find their selves incarcerated in such facility as these. The treatment in prison facilities toward prisoners with health issues or those who develop health concerns that

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

Different ethical theories would view this issue in various ways. Virtue ethics believes in placing a heavy focus on moral character, while focusing less on the action itself. In this situation a virtue ethicist would evaluate if ending or continuing Samantha's treatment would impact her moral character. The beliefs of strong moral character carried by a virtue ethicist would encourage Samantha to further her parents wishes of continuing treatment. A virtue ethicist respect for human life causes them to believe that Samantha should continue treatment because of the courage and strength it shows. However some virtue ethicist might argue that because of the value for human life, Samantha should be allowed to discontinue treatment to end the immense suffering she is in. A virtue ethicist would considered all of the details of the patients suffering before making a

Animals are bread forcibly, then nourished with specific intent of managing fat content, meat flavor, and healthiness, each of which discounts the Utilitarian claim that nature makes our carnivorous methods ethically permissible. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, such a claim is in direct contradiction to the Utilitarian tenet that each individual has equal value regardless of identity or stature. Because humans could be sufficiently nourished without the killing of animals, it cannot be argued that the consequence of causing death to an animal is equivalent or less substantial than that of feeding a man.

In his essay, Singer brings up key ideas that give insight to the readers as to why they should follow utilitarianism and vegetarianism. He argues that pain and pleasure are the basis of all moral values and because animals experience pain and pleasure, this makes them morally significant as well. Singer also states that utilitarianism gives good reasons to avoid certain kinds of sourcing meats. Therefore, factory farming should be avoided and that free-range organic methods of raising animals should be used instead because it is morally neutral or good. As well, even if livestock is raised in humane ways, it is morally wrong to kill and eat the animal because it will feel pain. Singer also notes that many things must be taken into account: the potential loss of happiness of vegetarians, the loss of livelihood of producers of factory-farmed products, environmental consequences, global and individual health concerns as

They note that the increasing demand for animal meat has caused human beings to massively come up with weird production tactics to meet the growing demand for animal meat. Less radical ethical vegetarians have argued that human beings can up with less strict production mechanisms like free-range systems to rear animals. They believe such moves can at least give the animal an opportunity to enjoy life before they face the brutal knife. Ethical vegetarians have been vocal pushing Food and Agriculture Organization to put more measures on food wastage mechanisms. They attest that if the measures are put into play, food wastage will go down meaning that meat consumption will go down still thus saving animals. Peter singer believes animals have right to be treated with respect just as humans.

Virtue Ethics is a theory of morality. It only takes into account the individuals themselves when distinguishing morality. As defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Virtue Ethics is the theory that “emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism).” It is because of it’s seemingly “rule less” structure that the theory has shown appeal. Virtue ethics places the emphasis on the type of person performing the action as oppose to action itself. This leaves room for the importance of character and a greater emphasis on the intentions of the person rather than the consequences or rules as above stated. This also means that people can learn to improve their moral life by becoming more virtuous. Those in oppose to Virtue Ethics argue that the rules of deontology and consequentialism provide the rigid action guidance lacking in v-ethics and because of this, what is “right” or “good” is’ obliviously’ more clearly defined. Without clarity in what is right/good, how can we know what is more virtuous of a decision? In this paper is will refute the objections to virtue ethics stating that virtue ethics, (1.) Does not specify what the “right action” is and (2.) Does not provide action guidance.

The four levels of moral discourse is used in addressing biomedical dilemmas. These four levels are Level of Case or Casuistry, Rules and Rights (Codes of Ethics), Normative Ethics and Metaethics.

We are a nation of meat eaters. We are socialized from a young age to consume high levels of animal products. This deeply ingrained meat-eating tradition is a big part of the American standard diet. A visit to the local grocery store shows that there is no shortage of animal products. Isle by isle you see a plethora of meats, neatly packed and ready to be cooked, dairy products neatly shelved, and even candies that contain animal by-products. This is an omnivore’s utopia, allowing for a lifestyle that involves the overconsumption of meats and animal by-products. The rampant meat industry has managed to condition people to disassociate the meats in our grocery markets and the animals from which they came. Most people have become unaware omnivores, consuming whatever meats are available to them. This shift of moral degradation is evident in how we process and consume our meats. We have become a selfish society that values our own convenience and affordability of meat rather than the consideration of the animal. This begs the question, is eating meat inherently wrong and should we forbid meat consumption under any and all circumstances? To fully address this issue, we must first define the moral status of animals. So, are animals equal to humans in worth and value and should they receive similar treatment?

The ability to apply morality to the resolution of life’s ethical issues in an appropriate manner has been the focus of philosophers for centuries. Morality, can be best defined as to what degree any action or inaction is deemed right or wrong, good or bad. However, the meaning of right and wrong, along with the application of these beliefs have been the catalyst for much debate spawning what is known as normative theory. The analysis of complex ethical issues found in common scenarios require the application of normative theories. Normative theories define the concept of right and wrong. There are three types of normative theories; virtue ethics, deontological theories and consequentialism.