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:
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.
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)
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 Thinkinglg...