Ethics Essay: Examining Moral Inconsistencies in Vegetarianism Debate

This essay delves into the ethical complexities surrounding vegetarianism, examining the moral consistency of human actions in relation to animal consumption. It explores three key ethical theories: Deontological ethics, which, drawing on Kantian principles, questions the direct duties humans have towards animals; Utilitarianism, focusing on the consequences of actions and the ability of animals to experience pain and pleasure; and Virtue ethics, assessing the virtuousness of eating meat. The essay investigates whether these theories support or reject vegetarianism, highlighting the varying perspectives on animal rights and moral obligations. The analysis includes discussions of Kant's views on animal rationality, Bentham's utilitarian arguments, and the concept of virtue in dietary choices, ultimately addressing the question of whether eating meat is morally justifiable based on different ethical frameworks. This essay provides a comprehensive overview of the arguments for and against vegetarianism from various philosophical standpoints.

Running head: ETHICS 1
Ethics
Name
Institution

ETHICS 2
Ethics
Few ethical issues polarize views in the same way that vegetarianism does. In relation,
there are other central questions that are more vociferously open to debate. Technically, many
people believe that deciding on what to eat should not be considered as an ethical consideration
(Adams, 2015). The paper will examine in an in-depth analysis thoughts expressed by three
important theories: Deontological, Utilitarian and Virtue ethics theories. The primary purpose of
this essay is not to argue directly or against vegetarianism but rather examine accusations that
humans are morally inconsistent in failing to consider the ethical claims of animals. In relation,
this implies that humans ought to change the things that we eat.
Kantian theories argue that human beings do not traditionally have any duties to animals.
Accordingly, the moral law is considered as binding on all rational creatures. One of the primary
ideas in this theory by Kant is that “as far as animals are concerned, we do not have any direct
duties to abide by.” Subsequently, this is credited to the fact that animals are not credited with
rationality, lack the aspect of self-conscious and hence are merely a means to an end. However,
the concept has been disputed within the Kantian framework most notably by Tom Regan who
argues that experiencing subjects of life is credited to individual moral rights (Van Hooft, 2014).
Kant conceptualizes ethics as a process that entails determining moral values and rules which
influence our obligations and the nature of our actions. On a deontological perspective, it is
considered morally permissible to slaughter and consume a moral agent. A relevant example is
the use of Kant’s notion that states that treating a moral agent as a means is wrong. However,
respecting them as an end in itself automatically preclude eating meals. In summary, the central
issue is whether animals are worthy of moral respect and hence unveiling the initial thought that
if this is so, does this concept entail non-consumption.

ETHICS 3
On the other hand, Utilitarianism is considered as the most conceptually simple of all the
ethical theories. The primary ideology, in this case, is that the rightness of an action is dependent
on its consequences. Technically, the right action is the one which maximizes the concept of
utility. In this case, utilitarian’s uphold one consideration in determining the moral status of a
being, that is, its ability to feel pain or pleasure. Traditionally, utilitarian’s have always been
sympathetic to the moral claims of animals (Safarzyńska, 2013). A relevant example can be
traced as far as Bentham’s case who used utilitarianism concepts to argue for animal rights. The
primary question, in this case, is not whether they can reason nor talk but can they suffer? One
can be surprised at the number of people who deny that animals can feel pain in the same manner
that humans do. In relation, if at all it was true that animals are incapable of suffering, this would
mean that they carry no authentic weight in the utilitarian moral calculation. The question,
however, remains whether the action of eating meat increases or decreases aggregate utility.
Technically, the utility from eating meat is considered relatively small. Although many human
beings get a lot of pleasure from meat eating, it is far from an essential interest since we can all
survive without eating meat in the same way that vegetarians do.
Virtue ethics credited to the Dan Barber videos, on the other hand, argues that when
debating the rightness of an action such as eating meat, ‘’an action is right if it is what a virtuous
agent would have done in the same circumstance". Relatively, the question at hand is whether
eating meat is a virtuous or a vicious act. In relation, Gruen argues that vegetarianism display
virtue (Garcia-Ruiz & Rodriguez-Lluesma, 2014). Subsequently, this is because in eating
animals, we as humans do not show compassion, maturity, sensitivity or thoughtfulness as
members of a moral community.

ETHICS 4
The general question answered throughout the article was whether it is typically
consistent for human beings to eat meat (Gould, 2014). As unveiled by the thoughts in the
arguments, the answer unsurprisingly depends on one’s moral convictions. In summary, virtue
ethics and utilitarianism advocate for vegetarianism while on the other hand, deontology theory,
however, reject the moral claims of animals.

ETHICS 5
References
Adams, C. J. (2015). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory.
Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Garcia-Ruiz, P., & Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. (2014). Consumption practices: A virtue ethics
approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(4), 509-531.
Gould, J. B. (2014). Good Eating: Food as a Single-Topic Ethics Course. Teaching Ethics, 14(2),
149-174.
Safarzyńska, K. (2013). Evolutionary-economic policies for sustainable
consumption. Ecological Economics, 90, 187-195.
Van Hooft, S. (2014). Understanding virtue ethics. Routledge.