I believe that any mammal, reptile, bird, or any other animal group that lives and breathes should not be tortured or harmed in any ways. They should only be eaten if there is too much of a surplus, or if a population of people absolutely need to eat their meat in order to survive. Any one who is using them for their taste should not be allowed to do so in any way. Any thing belonging to the bug or worm group, etc., should be allowed to be harmed if necessary, such as killing insects such as mosquitos and spiders. I derived at this conclusion because the first group of animals are closely related to humans and humans can evoke sympathy towards these creatures. Insects and that such are not closely related to humans at all, so therefore should be treated differently.
2- How is your ethical code similar to or different from Singer's?
My ethical code is similar because i believe that animals should not suffer since they feel pain, and should not be eaten unless absolutely necessary. I don't think they necessarily are the exact equals of humans, but they should not be harmed for no reason, such as killed for their meat. Also, they should be allowed free range grazing if they are going to be killed for their flesh.
3- Even if you disagree with him, which of Singer's arguments is most convincing, and WHY?
The most convincing argument is that animals should not be killed for their meat, unless absolutely necessary. I am a vegetarian and I firmly have always believed in this. Why eat a creature that can feel and show emotion when there is no reason to? It just does not make sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment