ANIMAL KILLING ETHICS

Everyone has a feeling involving the killing of animals, including humans. While some sections of people justify the topic of killing the animals for food, it is disheartening to some. The opinion about the killing is generally personal. As much as the killing animals for food are hurting for some, it is not ending any time soon. The various reasons that are supporting in the killing for food debate base on the fact that humans domesticate animals for a purpose in human-animal farming. Some nutrients are necessary for human growth from animals, and death is inevitable, and killing for food is at least peaceful and also helps the people and animals at the end.

The domestication of the animals by humans has been for a reason and a purpose. Humans domesticated animals for the general purpose of food and even hunted the animals for the food (Hursthouse, 2013). Trying to live in a surreal life of the animals having a brighter future while having things to achieve jeopardizes the sole purpose of domestication. Moreover, it is impractical to have humans domesticate the animals to have them see their family grow or develop into a larger family with a distant relation. 

Humans further need food from the animals to meet some of their nutrients needs (Armstrong, & Botzler, 2016). The vitamin B12 existent in animal meat is necessary for human development. For vegetarians, they get the essential nutrient from the food supplement. Vegetarians argue about health factors. They would distance themselves from animals’ meat to live longer at the expense of the quality life of enjoying the animal products. It is better choosing quality over quantity. Living a life-denying one’s quality of life over the quantity of life they are to live.  Pollan (2002) argued against the eating of animals and wished for the existence of animals in a world in which they are not killed. However, the killing of animals for food does not interfere with the animals’ better life. 

Death is inevitable, and every living creature is going to die and later eaten by some animals (Freeman, 2016). It is better killing the animals for food than see them get wasted and die due to some chronic disease.  The advocacy for not killing animals for food may be having an ill intention because arguing from the point of sympathy. People should find a way in which the other animals do not have to be eaten. At one point in the life of a living animal, they will be eaten. It is a favor done for the animals killing them for food that will be peaceful and faster than having to undergo the long-suffering.

Killing for food has always been since the time of hunting for the domestication of animals. Long before the animals become individually owned, animals served as food. The vegetables were rarely used, and in most of the celebrations and even sacrifices, the main meal contained animal foods. It is trying to live in the surreal world of the animals having the right to grow and achieve some goals that the killing for food is facing criticism. Moreover, it will be better one live a quality life surviving on all nutrients than longing for quantity life without quality.  Killing for food, therefore, should not have any form of condemnation.

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.