The main claim of Gary Steiner’s article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” is that is it absolutely wrong to kill animals for human needs. Steiner is enraged by the way how people choose the animals for food after serious consideration of the conditions in which they were raised. He finds it categorically immoral and says that it should not matter for you how the animals were raised, if you are still going to eat them. Also, he says it is unfair of the people to insist on animals being raised in ecologically positive environment while they are going to murder the latter for food.
Steiner’s claim is the one of value. He states his opinion on the problem of animals being killed for food (and for other needs of people). Being a vegan, he is strongly opposed to any mistreatment of animals. He finds even zoos and circuses immoral, let alone eating the animal. Steiner’s claim of value suggests his evaluation of the problem; his opinion is that it is critically unethical of humans to misuse animals just because people have higher position in the society.
…show more content…
He says that those who support animal slaughter argue that animals, unlike humans, were not made in God’s image and therefore they were made solely for satisfaction of humans’ needs. Another example described is the philosophers’ approach. Steiner mentions Jeremy Bentham’s theory about animals’ incapability of abstract thought. This, according to Bentham, means that animals, unlike humans, cannot predict future and, therefore, do not worry about their prolonged living. Steiner does not find these arguments sufficient enough to prove that animals do not suffer. He says that animals’ suffering undoubtedly takes place and that it cannot be