1. Do animals have a basic right to life and a right not to be subjected to brutal or painful treatment? Why or why not? If animals do have these rights, then is it then immoral to slaughter and eat animals? Why or why not?
2. If it could be shown that vegetarian diets are ecologically preferable to meat-based diets or demonstrated that meat-based diets contributed to American Dependency on foreign oil products or contributed to global famine, would that mean that a vegetarian diet is necessarily morally preferable?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 24, 2018, 9:55 pm ad1c9bdddf
Interesting questions! Let's take a closer look!
1. Do animals have a basic right to life and a right not to be subjected to brutal or painful treatment? Why or why not? If animals do have these rights, is it then immoral to slaughter and eat animals? Why or why not?
You could argue either way based on your moral and/or philosophical views. You could argue from a moral/ethical stance that animals do have basic rights and a right not to be subjected to brutal or painful treatment. However, it is still NOT immoral to slaughter and eat animals because it is part of the evolutionary/creators master plan, and just as cats eat mice ...
This solution responds to the questions on animals rights and vegetarianism.
A Discussion Regarding Ethics and Relativism & Animal Rights/Welfare
Ethics and Relativism
What challenges does relativism presents to various ethical and religious viewpoints. For this, we consider a specific moral question--circumcision--which might make it difficult to accept the relativist's response.
Do human beings have any obligations to animals in terms of their treatment? If it is wrong to treat animals cruelly, why is it not wrong to eat them? A discussion on how humans might find a balance between treating animals ethically while also raising them for food and dietary sustenance.View Full Posting Details