Is it Morally Permissible to Raise and Kill Animals for Food?
In societies where nutritious alternatives to animal foods are readily available, some argue that it is not morally permissible to raise and kill animals for food. This perspective is often based on the principle of unnecessary harm. If we can sustain our health and well-being without causing harm to other sentient beings, then doing so is morally preferable. Utilitarianism
, for example, would argue that if the suffering caused to animals in the process of raising and killing them for food outweighs the pleasure or satisfaction humans get from eating them, then it is not morally permissible.
Does the Availability of Non-Animal Foods Affect the Morality of Using Animals for Food? In situations where there are inadequate non-animal foods, the moral implications may change. If consuming animal products is necessary for survival, then it could be considered morally permissible. This is often justified through a social contract theory
perspective, where morality is determined by the rules that rational individuals would
agree upon for their mutual benefit. In this case, the need for survival could override the principle of avoiding harm to animals.
Which Ethical Theory is Most Consistent with Consuming Animals? The ethical theory most consistent with consuming animals would depend on one's personal beliefs and values.
Reference:
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Ethics for A-level. Retrieved from https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/ethics-for-a-
level
ISBN-13: 9781783743902
