Killing Animals and Their Rights

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Utilitarian Ethics
Virtue Ethics
Ethical Egoism
Ethical Relativism
Eastern Philosophy
Environmental Theories
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The modern world changes fast, and people evidence multiple processes that have a significant impact on their lives. The rise of science, development of technologies and industries, along with the globalization and digitalization, are the basic features of contemporary societies. However, being involved in multiple significant processes and enjoying all benefits for the consumer society, people prefer to disregard nature and environmental issues that become more topical every day. The disappearance of forests under the pressure of the industry and giant cities, radical climate change, and unwise hunting preconditioned the extinction of multiple species. It means that the next generations can be deprived of a chance to enjoy the diversity of nature and the world that surrounds them. For this reason, there is a topical question today whether animals rights can be disregarded, and they can be killed for food, fur, and leather, that are used in different industries.

Utilitarian Ethics

The given problem can be viewed by using different paradigms to understand it better and consider all existing perspectives on the idea of killing animals by humans. One of the first conceptual frameworks is utilitarianism stating that actions maximizing happiness and well-being of individuals should be accepted by society and viewed as necessary ones (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2017). In other words, the pleasure of people, the opportunity to satisfy their current needs, and the degree of their satisfaction become the central determinants of a particular action and its ethics. Applying this perspective to the discussed issue, it is possible to conclude that from the perspective of utilitarian ethics, killing animals and disregard of their rights can be an acceptable measure as long as it contributes to the improvement of peoples sates and fulfillment of their requirements.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is another framework that can be applied to discuss the selected problem and acquire its improved understanding. The given paradigm considers the moral character of actions as the primary determinant of their nature (Shafer-Landau, 2017). It means that virtue of a phenomenon acquires the top priority and dominates over the results or intentions. The acceptability of a particular action is linked to its moral character and its ability to promote good and positive effects. In means, that utilizing the ideas of virtue ethics to discuss the problem of killing animals and disregard of their rights, it is possible to conclude that such actions cannot be viewed as moral or acceptable. Even if a person haunts an animal to get some food, his/her intent does not matter as, first of all, he/she wants to harm this living being, which becomes critically important for the given framework. In this regard, virtue ethics can be employed to justify the complete prohibition of haunting and any other forms of exploitation.

Ethical Egoism

Discussing the topic, it is also possible to appeal to traditional theories. For instance, the idea of ethical egoism states that any moral agent can act in his/her self-interest (Bailey & Burch, 2016). In other words, any action that can result in the generation of some benefits or help a doer to improve his/her current position can be viewed as ethical and accepted (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2017). The ideas of ethical egoism can justify killing animals for food, fur, leather, and disregard of their rights as these activities help to satisfy peoples needs and help them to enjoy the higher quality of their lives. In general, ethical egoism can be taken as one of the oldest perspectives on the cooperation between human beings and nature that emerged at the dawn of civilization as people had to use all opportunities to survive. For this reason, their self-interest was the major aspect determining the acceptability of actions and consequences.

Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism is another framework that can be used to cogitate about animal rights and killing them. The theory assumes that the idea of morality flexible, and it depends on the norms accepted in a particular culture at a certain period (Bailey & Burch, 2016). For this reason, the nature of the action and its ethicality come from the current virtues and beliefs practiced by a particular community (Bailey & Burch, 2016). The contemporary world accepts the value of any life and tries to protect it. Moreover, there is a focus on humanistic ideas that also emphasize the need to protect all creatures. In such a way, employing the concept of ethical relativism, disregard of animal rights, and their killing is unacceptable because of the virtues accepted by the majority of civilized countries.

Eastern Philosophy

The problem of animal rights can also be viewed by applying the ideas of Eastern philosophy and ethics. The term is used to refer to a set of teachings that emerged in East and South Asia, including China, India, and Japan. The given frameworks are usually combined into one category because of the existence of some similarities between them. Thus, Eastern ethics accepts the unique value of any life and its importance for the world. The moral character of any action is determined by its impact on a living being (Shafer-Landau, 2017). That is why the ruthless and unwise killing of animals can be considered unacceptable as people do not kill them to survive; however, today, in the majority of cases, animals are killed because of the lack of interest and involvement.

Environmental Theories

Finally, the growing importance of environmental concerns preconditioned the rise of multiple environmental theories. For instance, the idea of deep ecology accepts the unique value of any life and living creature, its independence, and importance for the world regardless of the practical utility or the ability to satisfy some existing needs (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2017). From this perspective, killing animals and disregard of their basic needs is unacceptable as they should be protected because of their unique significance for the planet and observation of balance. Moreover, there is a need for the creation of beneficial conditions to help different species to survive and restore their population. In such a way, environmental theories determine the ethical nature of action regarding the harm done to the environment. From this perspective, the discussed issue becomes one of the central problems of the world today.

Conclusion

Altogether, the application of different theories to the discussed question shows its contradictory character and, at the same time, the complexity of formulating a single approach that can be used when analyzing it. The ideas of utilitarian or egoist ethics accept the idea of killing animals as long it helps to improve peoples lives and fulfill their self-interest. In contrast, other theories, such as relativism, or virtue ethics, devote more attention to the moral aspect of any action and prohibit the ideas of causing harm to any living being. It means the issue remains sophisticated, and it is hardly possible to formulate the universal paradigm. However, as far as the modern world moves towards the ideas of humanism, it is possible to conclude about the impossibility of ruthless exploitation of nature and animals in the future.

References

Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2016). Ethics for behavior analysts (3^rd ed.). Routledge.

MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2017). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (9^th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Shafer-Landau, R. (2017). The fundamentals of ethics (4^th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!