Moral Implications of Eating Non-Human Animals

Pastoral farming used to be highly controversial in human society when there were no alternatives for the resources it provided. On the one hand, the species chosen for this activity would never achieve such numbers in the wild. Humanity provides these animals with shelter and food, protects them from their natural enemies, and tends to numerous cattle diseases. On the other hand, humanity does it solely by benefiting itself with the cattle products. Animals are raised to be killed and eaten, experiencing different forms of “abuse” in the process from milking to poor living conditions and attitudes.

The topic used to be controversial; however, the verbs’ past tense is the most important part of that sentence. The strongest moral justification for pastoral farming was humanity’s need for food, especially considering the rate with which the population grows. More specifically, the need for nutrition was accompanied by the absence of a reasonable alternative. Nowadays, various nutrition’s alternatives to animal foods are available in society, and their number, quality, and accessibility continue to grow. I think these alternatives have not yet developed enough to replace animal food completely. However, I hope that, at some point, the alternatives’ quality and accessibility might be able to overcome the economic value of pastoral farming.

I think that utilitarian ethical theory supports my vision of the pastoral farming issue the most. According to Dimmock and Fisher (2017), it emphasizes the greater good for as many people as possible. While it might not be morally permissible to treat the cattle how it is treated today, it attends to the needs of billions of people living in the world, which, I think, is a greater good. Another part of utilitarian ethical theory that supports my view is the theory’s hedonistic origins. As soon as it becomes more economically profitable to shift to food alternatives, I believe humanity will make its move.

Reference

Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Ethics for A-level. Open Book Publishers.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2023, July 1). Moral Implications of Eating Non-Human Animals. https://studycorgi.com/moral-implications-of-eating-non-human-animals/

Work Cited

"Moral Implications of Eating Non-Human Animals." StudyCorgi, 1 July 2023, studycorgi.com/moral-implications-of-eating-non-human-animals/.

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

References

StudyCorgi. (2023) 'Moral Implications of Eating Non-Human Animals'. 1 July.

1. StudyCorgi. "Moral Implications of Eating Non-Human Animals." July 1, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/moral-implications-of-eating-non-human-animals/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Moral Implications of Eating Non-Human Animals." July 1, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/moral-implications-of-eating-non-human-animals/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2023. "Moral Implications of Eating Non-Human Animals." July 1, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/moral-implications-of-eating-non-human-animals/.

This paper, “Moral Implications of Eating Non-Human Animals”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal. Please use the “Donate your paper” form to submit an essay.