More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarian view of animal rights
Animal rights and utilitarianism
Abuse of animals in factory farming ilets essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In my synthesis essay, the three selected readings, “Equality for Animals” by Peter Singer, “You Can’t Run away on Harvest Day” by Barbara Kingsolver, and “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” by Gary Steiner, will answer the following question; What does it mean to eat ethically? What moral principles should guide our food choices and ways of eating? Between these three essays, they all made emphasis on how ethical eating is defined as sourcing food and eating it in ways that will not cause damage or injuries, neither physically nor mentally, to the food or the eater. Recently, people have expressed interest in where the meat and dairy they are consuming comes from and how it was raised.
Growing up with a pescetarian mother (eating no meat other than fish) and omnivore father has not been the easiest of tasks. My mother likes to think she is holier-than-thou because of her diet, while my father just sits and laughs in the corner while eating a stack of ribs. When I read Alan Richmands excerpt “Fork It Over: My Beef with Vegans” I identified with his experiences with vegans because they were what I had experienced with my pescetarian mother over the years. Despite non meat eaters trying to convert meat eaters through persistent ranting, describing in great detail how the animals are raised and slaughtered (guilt tripping), and by trying to demonstrate that food made without animal products can taste just as good as those made with animal products a person can still make the decision to eat meat and enjoy it.
The theory or idea that animal has rights comes from the rights that are traditionally moral and politically correct rights is a virtue from the type of culture that we are. Animal liberation comes from the utilitarian tradition that comes from ethics and mortality as coming about as a result of pleasure and/or pain, as someone’s overall well-being. When animals are caged harvest, this diminishes their well-being, which gives us the mortality that we address their decreased well-being and prescribes to us to liberate
In the article, “Against Meat,” author Jonathan Safran Foer discusses the moral level of eating meat, which is included in many diets in most people in America. He notes that as a child he loved the food that was prepared by his grandmother, who he considered as the best chef in the family. Furthermore, he also talks about the occasions like family gathering, all that he use to eat is meat (burger). Despite eating of meat mostly during family occasions, Foer decided to stop eating meat but rather eat more vegetables rather than eating all these meat foods. In addition, Foer himself writes “According to the U.S.D.A data by the advocacy group Farm Forward, factory farms now produce more that 99 percent of animals”.
I, like Mary Midgley, agree with Peter Singer in that humans should not harm or be cruel to animals if it is not completely necessary. I agree with his argument regarding animals being used for cosmetic testing and medical testing, and with his argument against harsh factory farming practices, but I find his moral argument against the use of animals for food questionable. I believe meat-eating as a dietary practice for all of humankind is justifiable. Peter Singer implies that humans and non-humans are equal in more ways than many people like to recognize, but one thing he fails to acknowledge is that humans and non-humans also share a shared instinct for survival.
Peter Singer, in his “Equality for Animals” and Tom Regan in his “The Case for Animal Rights,” both form strong arguments on the rights towards animals and the complete elimination on using animals as a means of resources. (Regan, 893) Although both conclude with the fact that animals deserve respect and should not be looked at merely as property, they approach this view differently. The main difference found in their arguments is Regan’s description of inherit value, and Singer’s referral to Utilitarianism. Singer focuses more on the expansion of Utilitarianism claiming that this maximum happiness should include the lives of animals as well.
While some authors will agree that eating meat is unethical, others will have a difference in opinion. According to “Equality for Animals?” author Peter Singer, when we consume meat we disregard the rights of the animals for our own interest and consumption. He believes in equality for animals and even goes as far to mention that if animals counted in their own right, then the way in which we use them would become questionable. He states, “One problem is, of course, that using them for food involves killing” (Singer 214).
One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).
Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher argues that non-human species should be treated equally to human species. Singer mentions that anyone who doesn’t believe in equal rights for animals is called a speciesist. Singer also goes into detail about how human speciesists believe that the pain felt by pigs or mice is not equal to the pain experienced by humans. In this essay, I would like to defend Singer’s argument, killing animals is not justifiable. Therefore, we should stop consuming animals by becoming a vegetarian or a vegan.
In the article, Timothy Hsiao begins with an outline of one school of thought of vegetarians that it is morally wrong to eat meat because of the pain caused in the killing of animals and that eating meat is unessential to survival. Hsiao then establishes his argument that even though eating meat may not be necessary, our “nutritional interests” are a valid enough reason to kill animals. The following section argues that sentience is only a relevant consideration in association with sufficient moral standing and that because animals are not part of the human “moral community,” they have no moral standing and therefore, their pain is a “non-moral” welfare interest, trumped by the “moral” welfare interests of humans (Hsiao).
I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.
Peter Singer in his essays expands on the concept of speciesism to the public and discusses how the criterion of applying rights to animals and humans is logically inconsistent. The designation of Homo Sapien being the only attribute required for moral importance is too arbitrary. Singer suggests we are to use the clearer requirement of sentience and capacity to feel pleasure and pain to assign moral importance. If this is to be universally applied non-human sentient animals deserve increased moral consideration fitting of their sentient status compared to humans. In this essay I will discuss Peter Singer’s definition of speciesism and through critical analysis look at the roll vegetarianism plays and its incompatibility with his arguments.
The second I saw calves being ripped away from their mothers and male chicks being thrown away like garbage, I decided it was time for a change. I announced to my parents, “I’m going vegan.” At first, they did not believe me; but after two months passed, they realized I was committed to this new lifestyle and joined me. The moment I became a vegan, my values towards animals became deep-seated and fervent. Now, I know what it truly means to believe that all sentient beings should be
In Keith’s first chapter entitled “Why This Book” he touches on the idea of how vegetarians feel that they are doing the environment good by not eating meat. “The truth is that agriculture is the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet, and more of the same won’t save us. The truth is that agriculture requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. The truth is that life isn’t possible without death, that no matter what you eat, someone has to die to feed
In today’s world, there is a division among the people in the world regarding whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. After researching about eating meat and vegetarianism, I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed ethical to eat meat in today’s society. Sure, eating meat might have its drawbacks, but I have found that the benefits of eating meat far outweigh the negatives of eating it. Eating meat not only helps improve people’s health, but it also helps strengthen our economy and it has little difference in the environmental impact that involves in the farming of vegetables. Eating too much of anything usually results in a negative outcome.
