Animal Rights Essay

The morality of killing animals (when there is no suffering involved) posses a challenge for utilitarian ethics. This topic is primarily addressed in practical ethics, given the enormous consequences that animal farming have on billions of animals every year. However, this problem goes further, to the core of utilitarian ethics, having to address issues such as value theory, the value of different lives and the importance of psychology in matters of life and death. My objective is to address this

taboo to do so. Safran argues that eating any animal, be it a cow, or a dog, is something to take ignominy in. The author, Jonathan Safran, uses the satirical device of travesty to create a serious, firm atmosphere, which conveys that eating animals is a shameful practice. Safran argues that while, yes, a large number of dogs-and other animals for that matter- are wasted every year, it doesn’t give us permission to eat animals every bit as smart as animals we do eat. It is stated that “pigs are just

Throughout my lifetime, I have always eaten everything that pleased me. If I wanted a cookie, I would have seven. If I wanted to eat ramen at twelve o’clock at night, I would get up and cook it. I never had a problem with eating immense amounts of food. In contrast, my mother always believed that I ate too little. Therefore, I was always encouraged (sometimes forced) to consume anything and everything when I felt the smallest inclination to eat. I never thought about where the food came from or what

In "All Animals Are Equal," Peter Singer argues that any being with sentience should be granted equal moral consideration. In this paper, I will reconstruct Singer's argument and explain the premises on how he came to that conclusion. To begin with, Singer defines sentience as the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness (Singer 53). Singer states that "if a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account... This

ends (“Animal Rights”). By this definition, animals have no free will; they blindly follow their instincts and desires, never faced with choosing between their thoughts and those of others. Without free will, animals also have no autonomy, and therefore humans have no duty to respect them in the same way they respect other humans (“Animal Rights”). However, Kantian ethics does not condone senseless cruelty towards animals, either. Reasonably, someone who can act cruelly towards animals has the

environment. Current Discussion on this Issue: Veganism is a big topic right now, not only does it save animal life’s but it has a positive impact on the environment. There is many discussions, articles, documentaries and books on why people should go vegan. There have been numerous studies done about the downfalls of a non-plant based diet, these studies include health related topics and all environmental topics related to consuming animal based products. My motivation to write on this issue: In late

The article “A Change of Heart About Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin informs readers that animals feel emotions very much similar to humans and should be given more rights. I agree with Rifkin’s statement, but to a certain extent. Rifkin gives great evidence, but one that stood out to me the most was how pigs experience depression if not given enough play time or affection. It reminds me of how humans become depressed if isolated from certain aspects in their life. It also baffled me when Rifkin

argue that animals are a part of the moral community; therefore, animals should not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment that are implemented by factory farming, and secondly, I will argue if you do choose to eat meat/ dairy products they should be from free-range farms, where the animals are not subjected to cruelty It is important to acknowledge animals, and their part in the moral community. Since animals are considered to be moral patients due to the fact they “lack rights or lack the

suffering from a incurable illness. They use animal euthanasia as a way to hasten the death of this animal and end its pain and suffering. Animal euthanasia serves the same purpose as human euthanasia; yet one is legal, while the other is not. “Two thirds of Americans live with an animal, and according to a 2011 Harris poll, 90 percent of pet owners think of their dogs and cats as members of the family” (Wired). If one is fully content with this approach on an animal that they consider family, then why is

1997; Torres, 2006; as cited in Khazaal & Almiron, 2014). The following chapter aims to consider living conditions of cows used for dairy, and, imminently, for ‘beef’, to provide a brief background for the upcoming Analysis sections where nonhuman animals will no longer be addressed (that is to say, directly addressed). A brief insight into the cows’ intellectual and emotional lives shall be provided first. 2.3.1. Highly Intelligent and Sentient Beings As Dr. Melanie Joy well explains in her remarkable