Animal Killing Ethics

The view about animal killing has changed dramatically in the 21st century. There is a more emotional attachment to the killing that, in most of the abattoirs, the killing is made in closed doors.  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 not 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 involve 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 views of animals killing are changing over time, and the need to stop unnecessary killing is calling. However, several factors bind human and more so in the human-animal farming that would lead to the killing of the animal. The killing, however, should be ethical. The primary factor for the killing is to obtain food. It will be a cry for the emotional attachment during the killing. However, starvation due to the conservation of emotion would not be better either. Moreover, crowding of the animals would not serve the environment better as everyone will be competing for the greens. It is, therefore, better for killing for a better reason and not waste.

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.