Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
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.
The theory of mere considerability by Mylan Engel, Jr. is a unique theory that introduces new concepts about vegetarianism. Mylan Engel, Jr. wrote the book, “The mere considerability of animals.” Even if all the premises in the utilitarian argument by Singer’s or the deontological point of view by Regan arguments are true, they do not provide enough support for the conclusion as Mylan Engel, Jr.’s argument theory about the immorality of eating meat (Engel Jr, 2001).
Mylan Engel, Jr. offers that individuals have certain beliefs that promote their objection against eating meat. Some of these beliefs are that; suffering, unnecessary cruelty in the world is unwarranted, and individuals are morally decent (Engel Jr, 2001). If they hold any of these views, they would believe that consuming meat is unethical and should be avoided in society.
Furthermore, many animals are killed yearly for people to eat meat. Animals experience a great deal of pain, distress, and death when they are killed. This adds to the world’s misery and suffering. Eating meat is also not necessary for the survival of human beings; hence the discomfort inflicted on animals is unnecessary. Mylan Engel, Jr. supports this claim by saying that since meat is an inherent component of muscular development. Some authors argue that meat is the major source of proteins.
On closer inspection, this claim is false as there would not be any vegetarian athletes (Engel Jr., 2001). However, this is not always the case as there are several vegetarian athletes; hence there is no need to kill animals. Through hunting, scores of animals are injured and left in the woods to die. These pieces of evidence provide an overview of the immorality of killing animals for meat.
Additionally, Mylan Engel Jr. argues against eating meat for its gustatory value. He offers that the pleasure of eating meat at the expense of causing instance frustrations to the animal is sadistic as a premise. Inflicting pain to animals for their taste is not a value that most humans possess. Moreover, before they become ready for slaughter, animals are put into unnatural and stressful conditions in confinements which curtails their free movements for optimal living.
During disease epidemics, the policymakers restrict the movements of animals without minding the implications on their well-being (Engel Jr., 2001). The young ones of animals, including chicks and calves, are separated from their mothers, therefore, disrupting their rights to free living. Therefore, buying meat from animals reared in factory farming and animal organizations supports the harm inflicted on animals.
There are criticisms leveled against the theory on the immorality of eating animals. Lawrence Becker says that humans always prioritize the needs and rights of individuals who are closer to them. For instance, the sentiments of family members are prioritized over those of friends (Engel Jr., 2001). Hence, using this school of thought, individuals should not be subjected to respecting the rights of animals because they are not closer to them. He also posits that it is not easy to justify the belief that human rights deserve greater focus than animals. However, these sentiments are false because even if some of these ideas were true, closeness is not thought to justify race.
Therefore, it is imperative to uphold the rights of animals for optimal living. According to Regan, animals have the same rights as humans because they are all animals. Because it is immoral to kill human beings, the same should be applied to animals. According to this view, animals need to be accorded similar levels of respect and ethical considerations that apply to humans. Nevertheless, some academics believe that equality enhances the moral considerability of animals..
Reference
Engel Jr., M. (2001). The mere considerability of animals. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
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.