Animal Killing Ethics

The claim by most of the scientist that industrial farming is the worst that ever happened to animal farming may be right. Conversely, human-animal farming has done no better. The several tortures and the demand for the products cannot be the celebrated life for any animal. Though the animals’ feelings can be easily overlooked or utterly unknown, it is a better life for the torture and the production if that is compared to human life. Rooting for human farming is necessary for reducing premature killings to a significant percentage. However, that does not stop humans from taking meat. Therefore the killing of animals under the controlled system may be a necessity while to a smaller extent also will affect premature killings.

Using the utilitarian theory, the killing of the animals should have a benefit for the broader population and the animals. Taking the case of not killing the animals for food, does not offer the satisfaction of those that will require meat to meet the nutrient requirement (Freeman, 2016). Pollan (2002) visualizes a world with animals lying loosely without the intrusion or taming. However, taming the animals cannot be wrong if the owner cares for them. Killing them for a higher purpose of people will also be ethical. Those people that kill animals do so when there is a need for use. With human animal farming, it will be ethical to treat the animal appropriately and avoid torture. Moreover, the killing creates a balance in the ecosystem, allowing for the breeding of other animals.

The virtues argument regards the motivation and character of the person as fundamental in an act being good or bad. The argument validates the character and what motivates the person to determine the good and evil in their actions (Hursthouse, 2013). When the motivation of the person is pure and not to harm the animals, then the action will be right. The person taking the animal for food has a good intention or motivation. Whoever kills for some other reasons like for rituals or from torture would be considered unethical. From the motivation that people feed themselves and the others, the motivation is right, and the action speaks of higher character.

The libertarian theory argues that everyone has a right and that justice depends on how one came to one the property. It further states that everyone has the right to the usage of one’s property whenever one deems fit (Armstrong, & Botzler, 2016). The theory supports the utilization of the resources as long as it does not interfere with the others. In the human-animal farming, human owners of the animals have the right to use their possession in whatever way they deem fit. Restriction of killing animals for the sake of animals’ rights will be described as an infringement of the rights of the others. Therefore, killing the animal for the sake of the food will be acceptable for humans.

The industrial animal killing has done more harm and more so in the way they make the killing. The killing of animals should not be like murder. If it has to be for the benefit of the person and the general society, it is ethically right. Moreover, everyone has the right to animal handling; thus, their action of killing for food is acceptable. Killing should be peaceful, and that is why some people go for euthanasia to relive them from suffering. However, killing for food has always offered various opportunities for humans, making it valid.

Reference

Armstrong, S. J., & Botzler, R. G. (Eds.). (2016). The animal ethics reader. Taylor & Francis.

Pollan, M. (2002). An animal’s place. New York Times Magazine, 152, 58-65..

Freeman, C. P. (2016). Framing farming: Communication strategies for animal rights. Brill Rodopi.

Hursthouse, R. (2013). Ethics, humans and other animals: An introduction with readings. Routledge.