English, asked by amita89, 1 year ago


why is it wrong to kill animals ? Write one page about i

Answers

Answered by vachhaniruddra
0

Answer:

The duty to eat our friends

In his essay, “Eating our Friends,” Roger Scruton argues that we may agree that the current system of

industrial animal agriculture is morally problematic because of the pain and suffering it causes to non-

human animals. However, suggests that we are not only allowed to eat meat, raised humanely, but may

even have a duty to do so.

In support of his claim that we are morally permitted to eat animals that are raised and killed humanely,

he claims that for cattle:

To be killed at 30 months is not intrinsically more tragic than to be killed at 40, or 50, or 60. And

if the meat is at its best after 30 months, and if every month thereafter represents an economic

loss, who will blame the farmer for choosing so early a death? In doing so he merely reflects the

choice of the consumer, upon whose desires the whole trade in meat, and therefore the very

existence of his animals, depends.

But he goes beyond this to argue that humane animal husbandry is “a complex moral good.”

Animal farming is “one of the kindest uses of land yet devised,” and “

…the result of raising animals [traditionally, humanely] will change the character of meat-eating,

which will become not only more expensive, but more ceremonial…The animal brought to the

table will have enjoyed the friendship and protection of the one who nurtured him, and his death

will be like the ritual sacrifices described in the Bible and Homeric literature – a singling out of a

victim for an important office to which a kind of honor is attached. Such it seems to me would be

the life of the virtuous carnivore, the one who is prepared to eat only his friends.

He goes on to suggest that virtuous carnivorism will be more effective in changing farming practices than

vegetarianism. “…I would suggest not only that it is permissible for those who care about animals to eat

meat; they have a duty to do so.” Why? Conscientious carnivores can exert more pressure on those

engaged in meat production to do so only through humane practices.

II. The Surprising Claim:

Elizabeth Harman argues against “The Surprising Claim”:

(a) We have strong reasons not to cause intense pain to animals: the fact that an action would cause

intense pain to an animal makes the action wrong unless it is justified by other considerations; and

(b) We do not have strong reasons not to kill animals: it is not the case that killing an animal is wrong

unless it is justified by other considerations.

[Note that in Harman, ‘animals’ sometimes seems to mean non-human animals, and sometimes animals

generally.]

A. Argument against the Surprising Claim:

1. If it is true that we have strong moral reasons against causing intense pain to animals, such that doing

so is impermissible unless justified by other considerations, then part of the explanation of this truth is that

animals have moral status.

2. If it is true that we have strong moral reasons against causing intense pain to animals, such that doing

so is impermissible unless justified by other considerations, then part of the explanation of this truth is that

significantly harming something with moral status is impermissible unless justified by other considerations.

3. If an action painlessly kills a healthy animal in the prime of life, then that action significantly harms the

animal.

4. If it is true that we have strong moral reasons against causing pain to animals, such that doing so is

impermissible unless justified other considerations then painlessly killing a healthy animal in the prime of

life is impermissible unless justified by other considerations.

5. Therefore, the Surprising Claim is false.

Similar questions