ETHICS AND VALUES
Assignment 2
“EATING ANIMALS”
Prepared by: Meet Kundariya
-14BCH029
In many societies, controversy and debate have arisen over the ethics of eating
animals.
Hinduism holds vegetarianism as an ideal for three reasons: the principle of
nonviolence (ahimsa) applied to animals; the intention to offer only "pure"
(vegetarian) or sattvic food to a deity; and the conviction that an insentient diet is
beneficial for a healthy body and mind and that non-vegetarian food is detrimental
for the mind and for spiritual development. Buddhist vegetarianism has similar
strictures against hurting animals. Islamic Law and Judaism have dietary
guidelines called Halal and Kashrut, respectively. Causing unnecessary pain to
animals is prohibited by
…show more content…
Problems with the consequentialist argument
If it is true that the world would be a better place if everyone was a vegetarian,
does it follow that any particular individual should be a vegetarian?
Some philosophers say it doesn't. They say:
The meat business is so huge that the loss of an individual consumer will make no
difference to it, and so will make no difference to the amount of goodness in the
world.
Other philosophers disagree, and say:
Someone who eats meat is approving of and collaborating in the wrongful acts of
the agriculture business, and it is morally wrong to approve of and collaborate in
wrongful acts, even indirectly.
The first philosopher might reply:
Because the meat business is so huge, the indirect participation or non-
participation of an individual in any wrongful acts that the industry may carry will
not influence the continuing of those acts.
Since an individual's acts do not cause or encourage the wrong-doing to take place,
they are not themselves morally wrong.
The virtue argument
Virtue ethics regard the motivation and character of a person as crucial to