Is it morally permissible to eat meat?

Is it morally permissible to eat meat?

The primary theme of the paper is Is it morally permissible to eat meat? in which you are required to emphasize its aspects in detail. The cost of the paper starts from $99 and it has been purchased and rated 4.9 points on the scale of 5 points by the students. To gain deeper insights into the paper and achieve fresh information, kindly contact our support.

Coursework: Ethics in eating meat

INSTRUCTIONS:

I will attach the readings and instructions that need to be followed. Please don`t let me down as I am trusting you guys to follow the instructions properly. Thank you Please don`t forget to use citations/quotations where cited. Intext exact citations

CONTENT:
Ethics in eating meatName:Institution: Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat because the sweet taste of meat should not be used as a justification to consume meat and use some animal products.To begin with, it is critical that animals have rights that should safeguard them from savage meat consumers. For instance, animals have a right to life, a right against torture, and a right against suffering. Animals are cruelly butchered to meet the high demand and taste for meat in the market. According to Christians, man was given the power to dominate over all creatures in the world. Therefore, man has the right to use animals for food (Singer and Mason, 2007). However, it is unjustified for man to treat animals as he wishes because he has the power to rule over animals. This owes to the reality that it is unclear whether man has the right to slaughter animals (haphazardly), but it is clear that humans have a duty to take care of animals. Furthermore, killing animals is equal to killing fellow humans because both humans and animals have a right to life. Instead of brutally slaying animals, people should consume their products, which have the same nutritional value and are cheaper than plant based foods.Like humans, animals should have rights. If humans contend that they have a right to life freedom, food, and shelter, then animals should share the right to life. Consequently, humans should not treat animals as a minority, to be slayed, and used for food. Consider that the farming industry keeps animals, which are slayed rudely. Can humans be slayed rudely? Humans have fought for their right to life hence they cannot be slaughtered. Since humans have a right to life, animals should have a similar right. In fact, Singer and Mason (2007) argue, “reducing animal distress is not enough; it should be banned and ended”. Furthermore, the World Society for the Protection of Animal argues that animals should be handled with care (not to violate their rights). The killing of animals is like subjecting animals to torture because the process of killing them is painful, a form of torture, and a violation of their right to life. It is evident that it is morally impermissible to eat meat because the killing of animals violates animals’ rights. Singer and Mason (2007) argue that some animals d...
100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions