Ethical Treatment of Animals

After reading Chapter 10 in the text, Watch this nine minute YouTube video:

PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Killing Animals for Food- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HAMk_ZYO7g

This video is from the University of Vermont and it talks briefly on the dilemma of farming animals for
human consumption. Many open ended questions are proposed throughout the video, but try to focus
on this -

1.) Is it morally permissible to be killing millions of animals for food?

2.) How do we draw the line between what we NEED to survive, and what we WANT?

3.) Is it possible to feed such a large population of people without large scale animal farming?

I encourage you to use concepts from the text to support your argument, specifically from chapter 10.
Try to write between 750-1000 words. You are required to use a minimum of three sources, and please
use proper citations throughout your writing. If you can't view the video, email me and I'll send it to you
in a different format. Please email me with any questions.

Meat has long been part of many families breakfast, lunch and dinner. It has also been proven
that meat has long been part of our diet, according National Geographics "Evolving to Eat Mush": How
Meat Changed Our Bodies, in which the author explains that our bodies have very much changed
through evolution to consume meat. Science, beliefs and even religion do play a huge part in everyones
decision to eat meat, as some ethics encourage and others allow it. Combining the science and moral
sides of a persons thinking, I do not believe it is morally permissible to be killing millions of animals for
food. This is taking into consideration what ethics contradicts in itself, and what science has to say about
the effect of meat internally and externally to survive.

Kant explains that animals are mere beings, compared to humans, as humans have duties and
responsibilities as intelligent beings. Animals do not know how to judge and are not self-conscious as
man is. However, Kant believed that although Animals do not serve a real purpose, humans should not
dispose of them even though we have no obligations towards them. His analogy of a dog and his owner
explains how if a man shoots his dog when the dog no longer serves him, it is wrong because it shows
his thoughts about men, because men may also not serve a purpose so the same concept may be
applied in shooting the man (Stanford Encyclopedia). Kant promotes kindness towards man through
animals, not necessarily at animals. We can find this to be true, even if we do not animals and humans
on the same level, as description can be applied to both when it comes down to looking at each
animal and human as beings.

Morality may go even further for some, to say that animals and humans are on the same level,
in terms of intelligence, ability to project kindness and even self-consciousness. With recent studies, it
has been shown that some animals can be self-aware of themselves (animalcognition.org), so they turn
out to be not just mere beings. Showing self-awareness, just as we do, indicates that they may be
capable or understanding morality towards themselves, and maybe even towards others. For example,
being aware of ourselves means that we are aware of what we like and what we dont like. We keep
those same thoughts as we know they belong to oneself. If animals are self-aware, it can be safe to say
that they draw the same conclusion. However, we may say that this may just be instinct, as to say if they
like being in the presence of another is because of instinct and not because they like it. However, it
could be said about us as well. It is just instinct to belong with another. These conclusions are tough to
draw because of communication: we do not speak the same language as animals, so it creates a
barrier to match ideals, but it shouldnt mean that these ideals should be completely dismissed. Going
back to the same concept Kant applied, just because an animal says they do not feel pain, does not
mean they do not feel it or even tell themselves they feel it, just as a small human child cannot. If we
believe we do not want to inflict pain a child, should we not inflict pain on an animal? Coming down to
just beings, shouldnt morality be universal? Dont you think your morals should be universal? As said in
the video, should aliens farm us? Not if we apply the same concept to other beings.

Some may say that humans eating meat is part of the natural evolutionary process, just as other
animals have to survive, and it may be true to the depth that humans have mildly adapted to eat meat
(enjoy it more so). However, this does not explain the need to raise millions of animals to just kill and
eat. Given in the analogy, women are naturally built to have a child every year, but that does not mean
that they must or do, or in other words that it is right (utilitarian.net). Hunting food, just as other
animals, is a drive to survive from a natural process because it is all that is available. That is to say that
raising animals for mass production, is not a natural drive to survive because it is a drive of want, not of
need when taking into consideration natural rights.

Under a scientific perspective, meat does not do any more that what other products can do, and
if anything can cause more damage. By looking at the scientific perspective, one can conclude much
cleared if meat is a need or want, in concurrence with the morality perspective. According to a USC
News article, meat can do just as much damage as a cigarette, meaning that eating meat can pose a risk:
a risk many take. It can be argued that we need proteins and fats from meat, but according to a study
stated in the article, plant-based proteins concluded to give the benefits with none of the risks. Risks are
also linked to the environment, as the meat industry is very well linked to the large amounts of
greenhouse gases. This is where the need and want can be determined. If there is another way, in which
both morality, for oneself and others, and well-being cannot be compromised or damaged, then it is a
want. The need is when is when something can be reached or met in only one way. Going back to
hunting and mass production. For those who hunt in areas where other food sources are scarce, the
meat is a need. Mass production in areas where there are other means to reach a goal (proteins, fat,
etc.) is a need. The morality in this would then come down to each individual: whether or not they want
to practice utilitarianism, Kants theory, or even egoism.

Scientific knowledge and analysis can help provide and lead society away from depending on
meat, or rather thinking that they must depend on meat. A TIME article states that technological
innovations can be the key to handle food scarcity that does not involve meat, as well as ways to even
make meat that does not involve mass production by killing animals (science.time.com). This of course
would come with other moral issues, but the issue at hand with killing other beings would be solved.
One way could be cultivating the large amounts of grain used to feed cattle, to feed people instead. It
takes approximately 2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of topsoil and one gallon of
gasoline to make about one solid pound of beef (earthsave.org). This should instead be invested
towards hunger, instead of the meat industry. If meat is wanted, Time magazine states that there is new
technological advances in which meat can be created in a tube, as to eliminate the need to raise and kill
animals. Ultimately, it is possible depend on non-meat industries and fee a large amount of people
without the large-scale farm industry.

In my opinion, it is not morally permissible, nor scientifically necessary, to kill millions of animals
for food. This comes down to the contradicting reasoning of the differences between humans and
animals and the scientific analysis provided by research on human consumption and environmental
impact.
Chapter 12 - Virtue Ethics

There are 24 virtues listed on p.162 in your textbook. All of these virtues are important and serve a
purpose in different scenarios. For Journal 7, I want you to answer the following questions -

1.) If you could only pick three virtues from those listed on p. 162, what three are the most
important to you? Why did you pick those three?
Reasonableness, cooperativeness and patience, benevolance

2.) If you could pick one virture that you think is the LEAST important, which one would you pick?
Why?

3.) Are virtues the same for everyone? Are the same sets of traits desirable for all people? Why or why
not?

Aim for anywhere from 750-1000 words. You do not need to cite any outside sources, but you are
welcome to if needed. Email me if you have any questions.