Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Causing harm to the animals is violating: Name of the university: Answer 1 Passage 1 Animals are sentient beings

10 Pages2854 Words311 Views
   

Critical Thinking (GCRT 100)

   

Added on  2021-12-10

About This Document

9CRITICAL THINKING CRITICAL THINKING Whether eating meat is morally acceptable Name of the student: Name of the university: Author note: Answer 1 Passage 1 Animals are sentient beings, which can feel pain. Animals are the God’s creation, killing them for satisfying personal hunger is not acceptable within the society. Based on the above principles, ARG conditions can be applied on the animals as follows: It is true that causing unwarranted pain to any creature is not right........

Causing harm to the animals is violating: Name of the university: Answer 1 Passage 1 Animals are sentient beings

   

Critical Thinking (GCRT 100)

   Added on 2021-12-10

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Running head: CRITICAL THINKING
Whether eating meat is morally acceptable
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note:
Causing harm to the animals is violating: Name of the university: Answer 1 Passage 1 Animals are sentient beings_1
1
CRITICAL THINKING
Answer 1
Passage 1
Animals are sentient beings, which can feel pain. It is our responsibility to protect the
creatures, who are the main source of living for us. Considering the animals as the creatures
reflects the consideration of ecosystem, which maintains the balance within the environment.
Causing harm to the animals is violation for the Gods’ Creation. Animals are the God’s
creation, killing them for satisfying personal hunger is not acceptable within the society. On
the other hand, desire to eat meat is one’s personal sentiment. Issuing warning and not
expressing allowance towards this direction generates the tendency of causing self-harm or
harm to others. Based on the above principles, ARG conditions can be applied in this case as
follows:
It is true that causing unwarranted pain to any creature is not right........................ (1)
Eating meat can cause unwarranted pain to animals ..........................................(2)
Therefore, it is morally unethical to cause unwarranted pain to animals by killing them for
their meat.....................................................................................................
(3)
Here, the fallacy is the lack of proper evidence towards not eating meat. Analogical
explanation can be proposed. Not eating meat, as animals can feel the pain, is indication of
caring attitude towards the beings. This kind of caring and understanding nature compels the
people to adopt simplistic lifestyle by eating only vegetarian items. This decision bestows
secured position on the individuals within the society. This is because killing animals is
morally not acceptable within the society. On the contrary, the dieticians are of the view that
eating protein enriched foods like meat helps the individuals in remaining healthy and fit.
This aspect nullifies the religious sentiments attached to eating preferences and restrictions.
Causing harm to the animals is violating: Name of the university: Answer 1 Passage 1 Animals are sentient beings_2
2
CRITICAL THINKING
Unwarranted pain reflects extent of punishment, which can be inferred on the animals.
Unwarranted pain reflects no guarantee that the animal from whom the meat is extracted
would be cured. On the contrary, these thoughts do not hold any significance, as the butchers
do not care about the animal after it is being slaughtered. This is unusual that the butchers
would care for the animals. This is because, they are there to cut the meat and earn profit by
fulfilling the needs, demands and requirements of the clients and the customers. The aspect of
punishment can be considered as red herring fallacy. This is because punishments deviate the
readers from the issue of eating meat. Punishing the butchers is an unusual proposition, which
hurts the sentiments of the community people, for whom meat is a staple food. Based on
these contradictions, application of red herring fallacy is inappropriate.
Answer 2
Passage 1
Every individual leads a life, which has been gifted by Almighty God. Like the
humans, animals are also conscious of their lives. This is evident from the act of fleeing from
dangers and falling prey to diseases. Respecting the life of the creatures is vital in terms of
respecting the fundamental rights. Consciousness towards this direction nullifies the aspect of
harm, irrespective of whether it is to the self or the others. If the case of chickens are taken,
they also have a life. They are considered as a source for food supplement, which is one of
the main requirements in order to survive. In terms of food supplement, the life of the
chickens are negated. This negation is simultaneously the negation of God’s creation. Based
on these assumptions, ARG conditions can be applied as follows:
Life needs to be treated with respect.......................................................... (1)
Animals have a life, which matters to them...................................................(2)
Therefore, animals have a life, which matters and needs to be respected..................(3)
Causing harm to the animals is violating: Name of the university: Answer 1 Passage 1 Animals are sentient beings_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Whether Eating Meat is Morally Acceptable - Critical Thinking
|10
|2882
|81