Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Nowadays, vegetarianism is highly popular and considered morally right by many, yet the moral implications of eating meat remain a heavily disputed topic. There are numerous arguments against and in favor of eating meat, yet many of them contain bias, making these statements less objective. In many such discussions, personal beliefs often clash with societal norms, regulations, economic and political factors. I believe that it is morally wrong to eat meat that has been produced on the majority of farms, yet there is a path to ethical meat consumption through utilitarian views on pleasure and suffering. This paper will present an argument regarding eating meat from the position of utilitarianism and consider the current situation in the meat production industry.
Main body
It is vital to understand the basis for this complex ethical issue prior to discussing its possible solutions. Philosophers with utilitarian views consider pleasure and suffering brought into the world through any action to decide its moral permissibility (Stich and Donaldson 290). This type of reasoning allows one to make a judgment to be as ethically right as possible while leaving little to no ground for subjectivity. It is common for utilitarian philosophers to attempt to assess both parameters and compare them as an aggregate sum of positive and negative experiences of all stakeholders involved in a process.
Relationships between humans and animals are always highly complicated due to severe speciesism from the former. The question of the morality of the act of meat consumption relates to animals mental capabilities that would allow them to be included in this equation. The complexity of animals emotions and feelings was confirmed a long time ago, yet no actions were taken after such a discovery. One of the modern utilitarian philosophers, Peter Singer, insists that animals suffering greatly exceeds humans pleasure from their consumption (Stich and Donaldson 291). In fact, Singers position is entirely correct when considering the state of many modern farms that cause an overwhelming amount of unnecessary suffering to their animals. It is morally wrong to eat meat that has been produced under such conditions.
However, there is a way forward that would allow people to consume meat without causing an imbalance of pain versus pleasure inflicted upon animals. In fact, this consideration will make it morally right to consume animals. First of all, without humans desire to consume meat, many animals would not have been born, and no pleasure or pain would be involved. It is each individuals special obligation to take responsibility for those whose pain-pleasure ratios exist or are related closely to them (Stich and Donaldson 292). Therefore, it is morally wrong to leave animals brought into existence to serve as a food source to suffer.
At the point of their introduction into this world, the value of their pain-pleasure scale is no longer zero, and it is humans desire that changed this parameter. With no actions taken against the current situation that promotes inhumane conditions for animals that bring only suffering from no pleasure between a creatures birth and death, eating meat will remain morally wrong. However, if a farm animal gets to experience positive feelings prior to being slaughtered, and these events will objectively outshine a creatures untimely death, consuming its meat will be morally good behavior. A person who purchased this meat has paid for a creature to be born and live a happy life. Moreover, not consuming such meat would imply that a person is unwilling to contribute to an overall increase of pleasure in the world.
In many cases, the consumption of meat is an individual choice, a cultural tradition, and a social event. It is virtually impossible to ban this notion entirely or even severely limit its occurrence without a critical failure that would disrupt an entire meat production industry. Restructuring cross-species relationships is a tough challenge that requires empathy that is not readily achievable even among humans. Understanding that it is humans moral duty to put efforts into reducing overall suffering in the world is a crucial step towards a utopian society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, consuming meat produced by the vast majority of modern farms and factories is a morally wrong action. However, when considering the amount of pain versus pleasure introduced into this world through this act, it is possible for people to turn their carnivorous cravings into a force for good. Since animals that are being born to become food would not have been born without humans craving for meat, turning their lives into a nightmare turns the consumption of their products into an evil act. The majority of modern farms disregard animals experiences of pain and pleasure in the pursuit of financial gain, making it impossible for me to consider eating meat as a morally permissible act outside of specific circumstances. I believe that there is hope for a better future for farm animals. However, humanity will have to bear with the loss of many benefits that it reaps nowadays from this dire neglect of rights that is not unlike slavery.
Work Cited
Stich, S., and T. Donaldson. Philosophy: Asking questions seeking answers. Oxford University Press, USA, 2018.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.