1

Eating Nonhuman Animals

Student’s Name

Professor

Institution

Course

Date
 2

Eating animals remains an ethical issue that is either morally condemned or justified

depending on society's multi-faceted attitude and behaviors toward nonhuman animals.

In regard to meat-eating moral justifications, two possible logics are provided. The first is

comparative justification, and the second is dominion-based justification. On comparative

justification, meat-eating as classified is morally accepted in the notion that some animals are

meat-eaters (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017). Accordingly, such acts, as argued out, are morally

equivalence behaviors between these two different species and should be free from critics.

Parallel to that, regarding “Dominion-Based Justification,” meat-eating justification

relies on the broader outlook as stipulated in the bible (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017). Accordingly,

after man was created, he was given dominion over creation, thus separating and demarcating

humankind from the rest of creation. God stated, “Everything moving may be food for man,”

apparently making it clear there was no objection to eating animals for man.

Elsewhere, meat-eating is evaluated on the ethical issue guidelines as analyzed from the

perspective of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics Utilitarianism, and Utilitarianism

theories. The utilitarianism theory seems to advocate in favor of eating animals. However, there

are times when eating them is morally wrong. In particular, this applies when the pain associated

with eating nonhuman animals outweighs any corresponding purported purpose (Dimmock &

Fisher, 2017). Accordingly, despite the objection in balance, it noted that utilitarian theory is in

preference of the satisfaction that favors provision of a healthy diet to the hungry family.

Contradictory, regarding the utilitarianism theory, Bentham, on perspective to moral

value, suggests that humans should take it as an obligation to recognize nonhumans' moral status

and resultantly modify their lifestyle instead of their anthropocentric ego (Cantu, 2019). The
 3

reason is that "a day may come and the rest of the animals acquire the withheld rights by the

tyranny hand."

The Reagan utilitarianism theory argues that because animals have the capacity to

experience pain just as humans do, they deserve the inherent right of moral protection from

suffering (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021). That more applies when they are

used as experimental subjects or as pets, or kept in zoos.

 4

References

Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Ethics for A-level. Open Book Publishers.

Lucero Cantu. (2019). Do Animals Have Moral Standing? A utilitarian approach to animal

welfare. https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/do-animals-have-moral-standing-

57e0820da83

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2021). The Moral Status of Animals.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/