Custom Morality of Dietary Choices essay paper sample
Buy custom Morality of Dietary Choices essay paper cheap
Being a vegetarian or non-vegetarian is a personal choice. In agreement with Peter Singer, the writer agrees with the premise that veganism is the only strictly abolitionists wish that we all can attain starting with the next meal. Choosing to feed on animals is such a great disregard for the animals and also a big moral and ethical prejudice (Reagan, 1989). I do not believe that animals should be eaten under any situation. Morality should not under any circumstance be justified along the human capabilities only, to believe that only human beings deserve moral consideration because of the specific human capabilities we possess is a lie. Singer urges us to consider the characteristics that only human beings posse that can ground them strong moral considerations, such characteristics include upright posture and human DNA but then are these characteristics strong enough to allow human beings mistreat animals or much worse consume them. If we could also judge animals based on some other internal characteristics such as being sane, independent, or ability to act decently with integrity then we would have a ground to judge animals as inferior but also a problem emerges in that not all human beings have these characteristics.
Therefore, if this is what grounds a complete and equivalent moral status, it follows that after all not all human beings are equal. Just because animals do not respond to the injustices against them does not really imply that they are not affected in any case pain and suffering does not chose the species and even if it does don’t we then all belong to one species-Homo sapiens. According to the essence of the principle of Equal Consideration of interests we should give equal weight in the moral decisions similar to those interests of people affected by our acts (Singer, 2009).
According to Kant actions are done entirely revolve around the aim or objective or purpose rather than the outcomes of the actions. According to Kant, morally acceptable deeds are those that could be willed by all sane individual in the circumstances therefore all deeds are undertaken in agreement with some underlying opinion which is different from each other and the moral value of any deed is judged according to the different opinions. Kant believed that rationality was the absolute good hence all human are rational. His ethics focuses on the principle that actions and judge these to be good or bad purely on how they match reason therefore many of our ordinary sense observation of what is good or what is bad agree to this method but refuses that any deed undertaken for this reason can be good. The important part of his work for the moral status of the animal is his dependence on the idea of willing.
Despite the fact that both human beings and animals have needs that can force them to actions, only human beings are able to hold themselves back needs and choose which way of action to take. This skill is apparent in our wills. Since animals lack this skill, they lack a will, and therefore are not independent. According to Kant, the only thing with any essential significance is a good will. Since animals do not have it they therefore do not have any essential significance.
On the other hand utilitarianism is mostly concerned about the last result or the consequence of an action rather than the objective or motive of the actions. Utilitarianism is more concerned with happiness, and acceptance of the idea that value is universal. Utilitarian reject any random difference as to who is helpful of concern and who is not. This thus implies that we snub racism, egoism, sexism, specialism, and other forms of unjust discrimination. This however does not imply that we refuse the premise that differences exist between persons or between groups of persons. As a matter of fact, across populations, some individuals tend to be cleverer, stronger, smarter, taller, and more intelligent in relation to others.
There is nevertheless no rationally convincing motive for assuming that a difference in ability substantiates any dissimilarity in the reflection we provide to their interests. Similarly there is no rational motive that justifies that animals should be treated differently just because they are not human beings it is about the end results the pain and suffering that is caused to the animals and the merciless death of many animals that Peter Singer is concerned about in his ethical consideration.
Animals in their natural setting are a sight to behold. Owing to my personal love for animals, the fact that animals are unwillingly restrained becomes distressing to me. I do not mind visiting the zoo once in a while I am always left with question about how morally upright is it to put animals in a cage or in an enclosed place far away from their own wild homes. Some moral questions or issues about the animals that come up include:
- Space- Often the zoos are too small for the animals such as the huge elephants and are too different from the animal’s natural settings such as a small cage for an animal such as a lion which naturally is supposed to be running after some other wild animals in the fields.
- Inhumane treatment of the animals-The antagonistic nature of people and the fact that some people happen to be real sadists in nature often prove the animals in the zoos and mistreat them very much. Such people disrespect the animals and that is really a concern.
- Separations from their own kind-Some animals live as a crowd and move together for example the buffalos, gazelles, lions. Separating them from their families and their natural setting has an adverse effect on them though the animals cannot say it is sometimes evident in their behaviors because they may become violent.