Student’s Last Name 1

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Subject

DD Month YYYY

MORALLY IMPERMISSIBLE TO EAT ANIMALS THAT WERE KILLED FOR FOOD

Introduction

Is there moral permissibility to eat animals killed for food? Lots of arguments have risen

again the current society on matters dealing with the moral permissibility of meat-eating. Many

vegetarians, fruitarians and other meat-eating associations have continually argued on ethics

involved in meat-eating (which lead to the killing of animals). The crucial part about this dispute

is mostly based on animal welfare, convenience, the nutritional value of meat-eating and

affordability of meat food when compared to vegetable food and other factors such as culture,

environmental codes, and religion. All these arguments are crucial in justification of morality

when deciding to eat meat. Hence, the development of this paper will focus on moral impressible

to eat animals slaughtered for food, explain the most grounded complaints my rivals can make to

your argument as well as replying to opponents’ objection.

Our argument will start with a common premise of justifying moral principle, everyone

affirms the sense that cold-bloodiness to animals isn't right since it will in general mischief them,

this raises the assumption against unjustifiable harms (Louis & Lewis, Pg. 862). The principle of

morality tends to seek clarification on when is harm bad for it to be considered serious harm?

The morality principle fails to have complete theories on what and how should you justify harms.

Harms tend to be justifiable in cases that only deal with self-defence or harming yourself to
 Student’s Last Name 2

prevent future harm, but no general theory exists here. Therefore, the harming of animals isn’t

justifiable morally.

To further shed light on the moral impressible of meat-eating, it’s vital to focus on why

these harms to animals aren’t morally justifiable. Hooley states that a vast majority of animals

farmed in the U.S. live in bad conditions are subjected to painful body mutilations and

experience harm when being transported for slaughter. Therefore, to effectively defend this case,

we have to react to endeavours made to legitimize these damages. In any case, first, we have to

take note of that a typical inspiration to why individuals eat animals that were killed for food

can't legitimize the damages delivered on farmed animals.

In this scenario, our first focus will be on motivation that leads people to eat animals

because it is part of their tradition and has never made the choice of eating animals killed for

food based on informed thoughts or reflection. Thus, most individuals eat meat only because

some arguments have accepted, but it’s not in an individual’s moral radar (Cohen). Therefore, if

one is provided with justifiable common reasons that often motivates people to eat meat, then a

plausible, prima facie case may be made without other support, thus one would change his view

and see that these damages caused to creatures are ethically wrong.

Besides the fact that most people eat meat as a tradition, a common motivation as to why

most people do so is for health purposes. Bernstein (Pg. 200) quotes that for most individuals

eating meat is necessary for their health, but this claim fails to have scientific evidence behind it.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a large food organization with nutrition professions has

a 16-page peer-reviewed journal, with many references on medical and nutritional literature.

They state: in our position appropriate planned vegetarian diets are healthy, adequately nutritious

and offer a lot of benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases (Stein). Besides,
 Student’s Last Name 3

vegetarians tend to have a low cholesterol density, low body mass index, lower chances of

getting cancer and reduced risk of chronic diseases. Since no literature exists on why it is

important to eat meat for health purposes, the argument vegan diet doesn’t solely rest on

expectation for better health compared to an omnivorous diet, in-fact omnivorous diet is worse

off as it is perceived to lead to certain diseases. Thus, it would be better off being vegan.

Another reason as to why most people consumer animals killed for food is that they taste

good and have pleasure in eating. For some, they would argue that eating food without animal

products (meat) isn’t tasty and satisfying (Fisher, Pg. 37). Thus, such types of contemporary

examples with human beings tend to confirm this, but does it justify the harmful behaviour. To

shed more light, take the case of an artist who takes pleasure in killing animals so that he/she can

use the blood on painting. He may not be viewed as a sadist; since he doesn’t raise and murder

the creatures since he likes to see them endure, nor is he glad that numerous creatures are

slaughtered so that he could get enough blood for painting purposes. In such a scenario, he could

believe that the slaughtering of animals is morally justifiable.

Most individuals would perceive such an individual to be a moral monster. Besides, he

only enjoys painting using animal blood and doesn’t gain pleasure when using oil or acrylic

when painting. Morally, human beings don’t have the right or obligation of doing anything that

provides them pleasure. In this case, the painter’s pleasure is in using blood for an artwork that

isn’t comparable to harming or killing animals for eating. Arguably, no positive pleasure should

be counted in evaluating the painter's action, as his actions are entirely dependent on the killing

of animals (Hooley). This is also true in cases involving the raising and killing of animals for

food purposes. Similar to the painter who paints marvellous and interesting paints using oil, the

same can be done to those killing animals for food as they can find pleasure and satisfaction in
 Student’s Last Name 4

eating vegetables and fruits. Besides, it isn’t morally justifiable to kill animals for pleasure

purposes (food purposes).

Objection….

Our arguments in this paper hold the practice that raising and slaughtering of creatures for

nourishment are morally impressible. To effectively complete this argument, we need to respond

to objections that attempt to justify that killing of animals for food is ethically permissible.

Common justifications that emerge are that eating of meat is natural, killing animals is a circle of

life, a lot of cultures have accepted meat-eating, given the chance animals could eat us, we are

also animals, vegetable diets are expensive, religions have approved meat-eating, and more. Such

are common justification, but in our case, we will be challenging the philosophical objections to

our argument.

Most people would base their actions on killing animals for food to be morally

permissible based on their view that human beings are superior. A common term used by many

is that “they are just animals and the basis of our superiority as intelligent beings gives us the

moral right of doing so”. Such reasoning supports the view that “if an individual isn't mentally

predominant, at that point is it reasonable for people to murder that person for consumption

purpose”. To reject this argument in regards to human-beings. Arguably, the fact that one isn’t

intelligent or morally virtuous doesn’t give another the chance of killing or harming the other. So

if this justification stands, it would be similar to harming and eating babies, disabled people, and

dementia patients. Thus, any argument raised to justify the eating of vulnerable people is

unsound and morally impressible. The same tends to apply to animals as it isn’t ethically good to

kill them for food purposes.

 Student’s Last Name 5

There may be others arguing that painless killing is harmless, hence it is morally

permissible. But, such an argument may open doors to some moral form such as raising and

killing of animals without pain doesn’t cause harm (Hooley, Pg.117). But, even if we agree to

such a view, evidence exists that farmed animals tend to have an interest in living. For instance,

Bernstein Mark notes that animals, for example, great apes have intellectual capacities that make

it prima facing incorrectly to hunt them down. Besides, even if we agree on this view of a

painless death, only human beings will have a sense of their existence in the future, and therefore

animals also deserve the benefit of the doubt. Sufficient reasons might exist as to think why we

should harm them, but morally killing them for consumption purposes isn’t good.

In conclusion, we have critically argued why the killing of animals for food isn’t morally

permissible. The primary argument has been that causing harm to animals doesn’t have any

moral justification. Besides accepting the fact that food has a central part in our lives, making us

feel privileged to engage in rational behaviour of harming animals. It is not plausible to inflict

harm on animals, thus the justification of killing animals for food shouldn’t be accepted.
 Student’s Last Name 6

Work Cited

Louis, Pojman, and Lewis Vaughn Pojman. The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics

and Literature. 2011.

Cohen, Carl. "Do animals have rights?." Ethics & Behavior 7.2 (1997): 91-102.

Fisher, Andrew. "Against killing “happy” animals." Ethical Vegetarianism and

Veganism (2018): 34-41.

Bernstein, Mark. "the moral complexities of Eating meat." Journal of Animal Ethics 7.2 (2017):

198-203.

Hooley, Dan, and Nathan Nobis. "A moral argument for veganism." Philosophy Comes to

Dinner. Routledge, 2015. 102-118.

Stein, Karen. "A Quarter-Century of Transformation: The Recent History of Evolution at the

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics." Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and

Dietetics 117.10 (2017): S9-S18.