Morality Of Killing Animals

Throughout history, personal feelings, ethics, persuasion, and judgement is what lead the masses of countries. Such actions can be considered horrendous and uncivilized acts, which are unbefitting for our generation. There is no reason that we should be killing any animal inhumanely, just for pure succulent pleasure.

In the article “A Change of Heart About Animals” by Jeremy Rifkin published in the Los Angeles Times on September 1, 2003 Rifkin advocates for the ethical treatment of animals and discusses how people perceive, and at times underestimate, animals and their abilities. Two letters were written, one by Lois Frazier and the other by Bob Stevens, to Rifkin in response to “A Change of Heart About Animals” and were published in the Los Angeles Times editorial section. Each letter expresses the author’s individual opinion on Rifkin’s convictions. Rifkin uses scientific studies, such as the ones conducted at Purdue University on pigs’ social behavior (Source #1 par. 4), to support his belief that

In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.

Singer opens up discussing different liberation movements and how certain movements have expanded our interpretation of the basic moral principle of equality. This directs him into advocating his belief basic equality should expand amongst all species. Throughout the text, the term speciesism is used, which he defines as, “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species”. Singer makes it apparent, in today’s society, most people practice speciesism. He makes three apparent claims: equality is based on equal consideration, equality is a moral idea not factual, and the importance of taking into account suffering and interests.

With the discrimination of human beings, annihilation of masses, and carnage of innocents, history shows how vicious human actions can be. What separates people from animals that kill others just the same? Human being’s ability to use reasoning to validate the cruel actions they take upon others. People often use logic and premises to warrant the actions they wish to take. It is convenient for them to have this ability to allow them to do as they please as long as they can support it with reasoning, not only for others to understand, but also to make themselves feel less guilty of their desires.

According to Elizabeth Harman, an action that kills an animal even painlessly, is an action that harms the animal. If we indeed have strong moral reasons against causing pain to animals, Harman argues we must also have strong moral reasons against killing animals. This raises an objection to the Surprising Claim, which states that we have strong reasons against causing intense pain to animals, but only weak reasons against killing animals. The First View claims that killing an animal deprives it of a positive benefit (future life) but does not harm the animal.

We don’t care if an innocent animal is mistreated or killed because we have no obligation to be just to them. We however have many laws against abuse and murder in humans. What’s the difference? Do you sign a contract the moment you are born or agree to something to where you say that you won’t murder or abuse innocent people? Do you agree to not murder someone when you first met them?

There are some citizens who believe that wild animals have no fair chance. Nevertheless, killing a deer cannot be any worse than slaughtering a cow or chicken for meat. “Nine in ten of America’s population include meat as part of their diet” (Berg). When a farmer decides its time for his animal to be slaughtered, the animal has no chance for survival whatsoever, yet individuals will still consider eating a hamburger ethical.

Animals Rights In society, animals are being killed for food, fur, and experiments. This raises the question is it ethical to kill other animals for our own person gain? As human, we live in a society where it is humane to kill other animals when it comes to survival, clothing and to help cure diseases. But this is not really answering the question why is this okay?

While returning to his first arguments about how critics often argue that hunting is immoral because it requires intentionally inflicting harm on innocent creatures. Even people who are not comfortable should acknowledge that many animals have the capacity to suffer. If it is wrong to inflict unwanted pain or death on an animal, then it is wrong to hunt. Today it is hard to argue that human hunting is strictly necessary in the same way that hunting is necessary for animals. The objection from necessary harm holds that hunting is morally permissible only if it is necessary for the hunter’s survival.

Is it right to kill those innocent creatures painfully? No. It’s not right to harm them for our own benefits. Every living soul have rights, this includes animals, and just because they can’t speak up for themselves doesn’t mean we can take that away from them. The fact that they can’t speak is a disadvantage, and it’s unethical for us to use their disadvantage against them for our own benefits.

A less sentient animal would be one would that does not have a conscious awareness of itself or one that can not feel bodily pain. An example of a less sentient animal would be a mollusk or an insect. However, based upon Nussbaum’s definition, the killing of African elephants for meat and ivory would be considered wrong since they are aware of themselves and would feel bodily harm. Nussbaum also seems to favor the protection of animals with a complex nature and sentience because one could argue that they have more capabilities and functionings than a mentally handicapped person. If one could use the capability approach to justify the killing of animals, then would it be permissible to euthanize “less-sentient human beings?”

The killing of animals, which causes pain is a definition of animal cruelty. To be precise, the terms apathy and empathy can be compared in the exhibition of harming animals. Apathy is one of the reasons why animal cruelty occurs. This is because others feel the pleasure in hurting animals instead of taking care of them due to psychological disorders. For instance, Jeffrey Dahmer is one of the many notorious psychopathic serial killers who torture animals for satisfaction.

Abbate argues the liability in the defensive killing of nonhuman animals. She breaks it into three parts. First, the reviews the animal rights position by explaining the granted rights that are “protected against being ignored or violated simply because this will benefit someone else,” the author is referring to human beings (108). Secondly, the overriding the rights of nonhuman animals in self-defense. The author argues that nonhuman animals cannot be granted “those rights will always trump other rights that may be held by humans or nonhumans” (110).

On the one hand, some people are favorable for killing animals. It has many opinions why they have accepted. Their reasons with cruelty make them get many benefits such as nutrient, knowledge, safety, prevention, and money. The first reason for killing animals is humans killed them for consuming such as pork made from pigs, beef made from cows, and lamp made from sheep. Human’s life exists to cause by plants and animals.