Bobbie Edwards PHIL 1120 Animal Welfare

Considering the question of whether or not it is wrong to kill animals for human consumption, this essay argues that the killing and consumption of animals is justified because of the qualitative differences that separate humans from animals, and because of the necessity of animal protein for proper human nutrition. Rejecting the work of Singer (1974) in favor of the positions by Pollan (2002) and Hardin (1968), the essay combines a deontic and utilitarian point of view that justifies the killing and eating of animals. Arguing that slaughtering animals must be done as humane as possible, the essay concludes that taking the life of an animal should never be an easy or simple decision. Singer (1974) shares Benthams conception of moral equality and suggests that we should not judge or treat other entities, especially living animals, on the basis of their capabilities. Given that animals have the capacity for suffering, and that suffering is something that we want to avoid; Bentham and Singer (1974) argue that we face a moral duty to not harm animals, as this implies their suffering. Because we try to avoid suffering ourselves, it is immoral for us to cause it on others. While Singers (1974) argument is persuasive, it ignores the differences in power, consciousness, and technology that separate humans from the animal kingdom. Given our superior minds and greater abilities, we do not exist in the same frame of reference as animals. Given that the proteins that they provide are crucial to our existence, there is no realness to Singer (1974)s notion that we should not kill them to eat them.

Pollan (2002) makes the point that there is no clear ethical imperative to not kill and eat them. He argues that rather than the instinct that is associated with animal eating animal in nature; humans are qualitatively different from their animal brethren. This difference is a form of superiority that guarantees human beings have the right to eat animals. With regard to utilitarianism, the fact that it brings a benefit to the majority of humans creates a one side moral calculation that justifies the practice. From a deontological view, with the roles of humans and animas reversed it is likely that these animals would eat us. On the basis of the differences between humans and animals, it seems that we have the right to eat and kill as needed. Hardin (1968) moves from the question of whether killing animals itself is morally justified to the question of in which manner humans can justifiably do so in a safe and sustainable manner. Discussing the Tragedy of the Commons, and arguing that human selfishness leads us to often overtax natural resources like the animals which we harvest, Hardin (1968) argues that, in hunting and fishing, it is crucial that we coordinate our behaviors to ensure that our supplies of animals, for food and other utilitarian purposes, are not unduly depleted. Hardin (1968) justifies the killing and consumption of animals as long as the practice is done in a manner that is sustainable. With these three points of view, this essay takes the position that killing and eating animals can be justified on the multiple ethical philosophies. From the differences between humans and animals allowing for a utilitarian justification, to the need for protein justifying a deontological argument, the right to eat animals is the idea that they should be treated humanely, and harvested in a sustainable manner. The taking of an animals life does not

have the same components as the taking of a human one simply because humans are different from that of the rest of Earths animals. Deontological and utilitarian philosophies combine to provide us that because of our higher position in the food chain; it is against our moral duty for us to cause stress or pain on these animals when we take their lives. While unsure about issues such as foie gras, it is doubtful if the animal derives joy or pain from the gluttony that eventually produces the immoral result of its overfeeding; the essay proposes that we have ethical duties which force us to never take an animals life lightly. While an animal may not be worth the same as a human, it is essential that we do not waste parts of the animal, kill merely for sport, or prolong an animals suffering. To do such things would simply be unethical both on the grounds of the Categorical Imperative and Benthams utilitarian calculations.

Works Cited Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248. Pollan, Michael. (November 10, 2002). An Animal's Place. New York Times Magazine Singer, Peter. (1974). All animals are equal. Philosophic Exchange, 1(5), 104-107.