Is a vegetarian diet ethically preferable? Explain why or why not using ethical theories to support your position
To answer the question whether a vegetarian diet is ethically preferable, one should consider a number of theories. It is vital to point out that different ethical teachings recognize various spheres of people’s lives. For instance, utilitarianism is more concerned with consequences than with actions that lead to them. Thus, one can argue that eating animals is justifiable as the process of meat production is easy to maintain.
Currently, it allows people to have jobs and easily accessible products. However, one can look at this issue from another point of view. The ethical preference of a vegetarian diet may be proved with this theory if one considers the consequences of every person choosing to be vegetarian. As Fieser (2017) writes, the philosophy of utilitarianism is concerned with the moral righteousness of a situation for every person.
Thus, if the majority of people switch to a vegetarian diet, the ethical considerations will change as well. People will have jobs in other sectors as meat production will decrease. The availability of different products will rise as well. Interestingly, this theory is hard to implement in a discussion about animal pain.
Other theories, however, can be used to support this argument. For example, virtue ethics imply that a person should foster positive qualities to become a better person. One can argue that compassion and love for other creatures can become a valuable part of one’s character and moral growth. Thus, a vegetarian diet appears to be more ethical according to this theory. The notion of doing no harm to others may or may not include animals in the meaning. Therefore, some aspects of various duty theories can support the case for a vegetarian diet as well.
Using ethical theory, explain why you feel the use of animal testing for cosmetics is ethical or not. Also using ethical theory, explain the reasoning for the opposing position and why it is incorrect
Animal testing is a topic that raises many debates. Ethical considerations of this issue involve a number of factors. First of all, during the trials restrained animals feel pain, which concerns the opponents of testing the most. Moreover, the tests are usually rather long or reoccurring, which exposes animals to constant abuse. However, these experiments are performed to produce cosmetics that are safe for people.
This problem divides people according to their priorities. In my opinion, animal testing is highly unethical for many reasons. First of all, the virtue theory discourages people from acquiring bad characteristics, including insensibility (Fieser, 2017). The cruelty of animal testing does not positively influence people, as it does not raise one’s compassion and charity. Following that logic, causing pain does not make people better, which contributes to their personality and affects their decisions. Moreover, various duty theories can also support this argument. People can extend their duty not to harm others to animals as they feel pain in the same way. Therefore, one’s duty of nonmaleficence is essential here.
Other philosophies may argue that the use of animals is beneficial to humans. Utilitarianism and different consequentialist theories can state that the product made with animal testing is safe for people, and it is the primary outcome that everyone should be concerned with in the end. However, the process of animal testing can reveal some weak points of this argument. According to Doke and Dhawale (2015), this type of testing has some limitations that can overweight its advantages.
For example, the tediousness and cost of such trials make it unreliable and hard to use as well. Moreover, the scientific progress presents various alternatives to this type of testing. Thus, one can see that animal testing is no longer advantageous enough for people to dismiss the cruelty of its operations.
References
Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229.
Fieser, J. (2017). Ethics.