Currently, our existence comes at the expense of great suffering to animals (which includes us). Sentient beings have a 'welfare state' -- their biological reactions reflect this. For example, you avoid standing in front of trains because you know that they will kill you and you value your life.
What is to distinguish between the suffering of a dog and a human? What makes humans superior in this ethical sense? If you strike a dog or a human with a shovel, suffering still occurs in both instances. Both have a welfare state to attend to. An enhanced intellect does not privilege the entity as the suffering is occurring regardless. In fact, it's because that we have the capacity to understand the infliction of suffering that we should be morally obliged to reduce suffering.
Similarly, we as humans place a negative value on the killing of each other. Unless someone wants to be killed, killing someone against their will is an infraction on his or her sentient state (and brings suffering to others to). If no one has the right to kill another human, then ethically, why does anyone have the right to kill another sentient animal?
If you dis-value suffering, then you are ethically obliged to prevent suffering in all instances.
1. Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong.
2. Consuming animals causes suffering.
3. Consuming animals is unnecessary.
C. Ergo, consuming animals is wrong.
Consuming animals may have been necessary at some point in our existence, but it is not the case anymore. Not only are we perfectly capable of living healthy lives without consuming animals, it would be more efficient use of land to grow crops rather than raise livestock.
Especially in this day in age.
Now, scientists overbreed livestock and make them undergo absolutely cruel conditions.
It wouldn't be AS bad if we raised our own meats, as humans are omnivores (and herbivores by choice), but the fact that we are relying on companies that do harm to the environment as well as torture their animals is beyond unethical.
Some people say that animals are born to be our food, if yes then why don't you eat your pet DOG/CAT/HORSE I believe 99% of people would say they would not eat their PET.
It is like you would not kill your family and can kill anyone else outside world and then you call yourself HUMAN (in case you know the meaning of HUMANITY).
Human is omnivorous so technically there is no problem, the main problem here is some people are eating meat since they are born and you really can not do anything about it, they would keep on eating even if you want to quit probably just a few can do it, so people have to go against the motion that.
Is consumption of animal ethically wrong?
YES it is cause you are killing a animal which feel the same pain as you do when someone slit your throat and leave you for hours until last drop of blood is out and then cut you in small pieces put them in a plastic airtight packing and sell it.
Other question is why cant you live on agricultural products fruits and vegetables, and for sure they are proved to be much healthier than animal for sure.
According to utilitarianism, it is wrong to do something if the resulting suffering is greater than the resulting happiness.
1) Animals have are conscious beings. If we say that other people can feel pain or pleasure, we should also say that animals can do it. They react to pain in a similar way humans do, so we are justified in the belief that animals do indeed feel pain and pleasure. This makes them suitable for utilitarian analysis. We are also justified in the belief than an animals has lesser rights than a human being, because of the complexity and intensity of human emotions.
2) Being killed creates much more damage than eating meat creates happiness. Else we would risk our lives for a steak, but we won't. (if we are not starving) Thus, even if animals have a lower moral status than humans, we still can't kill them just for our pleasure.
3) Economically, we can feed everyone without having to eat meat. On the contratry, meat production consumes very high amouts of crops. We could feed much more people if there was no meat production.
4) Meat production leads to animals are being tortured even before they are being killed. (not enough space, bad food, etc.) This is morally wrong.
I agree with toolpot's assessment. It is true that animals suffer as the result of our diet and for the vast majority of humans, eating animal flesh is a luxury not a necessity. Therefore, we are unnecessarily causing pain, which is ethically wrong.
Also, a pound of beef takes 1,800 gallons of water to produce where wheat and rice take only 132 and 449 gallons of water to produce of pound of respectively. Http://on.Natgeo.Com/bPN2kK. Considering continually dwindling fresh water supplies, the sheer amount of land required per pound, greenhouse emissions, and the damage due to runoff and soil erosion from grazing, market based meat production and consumption is not environmentally sustainable and arguably an ethically wrong luxury. Just another point unrelated to the suffering, but definitely something to consider.
Now if your unlikely home environment is cut off from the world market, it cannot support sufficient non-animal foodstuffs or animal meat is your only outlet for sustenance for any other purpose then no it is not ethically wrong to consume animals.
Common rebuttals include some variety of:
"It has been happening a long time" - The length of time something has been going on does not speak to its ethical quality. E.G. Racism, flinging poo, misogyny
"Other animals do it" - Other animals either don't have the intelligence, biology or tools to maintain a non-animal diet, cannot digest plant matter or require nutrients from meat for development. We are not in this group.
"We're built for it/We have the biological tools to eat meat" - Our evolutionary predecessors needed to eat meat to survive out of necessity and our biology mirrors that, but that is not the situation today. Our biology or ability to do an action doesn't require us to behave in a certain way.
"They were made for our consumption" - Unfounded, usually a theological argument.
"Plants are alive too" - While true, plants to not have a central nervous system and do not feel pain and are therefore not an ethical quandary.
"Survival of the fittest" - Soundbite, in this instance indicative of a misunderstanding of evolution. Eating meat makes you no more 'fit' in the evolutionary context than your surviving non-meat eating counterparts.
"It tastes good/I enjoy it" - Hardly an argument for ethical worth.
"Humans need meat to stay healthy" - Simply not true.
"Killing is wrong, consumption isn't" - I guess if you happened across a dead deer in the woods, eating it would be ethical enough, but you may die from it. Most people purchase their animal flesh in a market society today, effectively giving someone else an incentive to commit ethically wrong actions. Paying someone to inflict undue pain on another for your benefit is also unethical.
Currently it is ethically wrong for many reasons, mainly how we go about it. However economically we shall continue to go about it for a very long time.
One day we'll probably just grow the meat in a factory, without it having to endure pain or otherwise. Sadly right now McDonald's chicken is a pink sludge.
No. Eating animals isn't ethically wrong. Perhaps, I will grant, our 'greater' awareness gives us a responsibility to like creatures (other animals, specifically) to prevent them from suffering unjustly, but it far from creates an ethically or moral boundary to prevent us from consuming them. Animals are a form of sustenance for our existence; it has always been so. We've evolved as omnivores for a reason. We aren't strictly carnivores or herbivores. Our evolutionary traits allow us to consume them and therefor I see nothing wrong with it. It would be entirely different if there were another species of animal that had attained the same level of sentience that we have, but there isn't.
We are animals just like cats and dogs. We are omnivores so that means we are MEANT to eat plants and ANIMALS. That is how we are biologically wired. It part of the food chains and the food webs that exist wherever you go. If we didn't have high intelligence, we would probably not be at the top of the food web like we are right now. Also, other animals eat animals. If something is a carnivore or an omnivore, it will eat other animals. There is nothing wrong with it. That is just the way the food web works. If we were not supposed to eat animals, we would be herbivores.
Well, the consumption of animals started obviously by the cavemen a very long time ago, so it's been around a while. Nobody can really make an argument against animal consumption. First, it's not like we are eating the entire population of animals on the planet. Sure a lot of animals are hunted, but more are hunted than are eaten by humans. Second, to say animals shouldn't be consumed, would be to say other animals shouldn't eat each other, which happens all the time. Yes humans look down on killing each other, and especially cannibalism, but consuming animals isn't wrong in any way shape or form, not because they are more simple minded than we are, but because animals are a resource on this planet, just like trees that are cut down and used to build our houses, and raw materials that are pulled from the earths ground to make our medicines and cleaning materials and whatnot.
Animals are delicious. Or at least some of them are. Grilled chicken fajitas are divine. A nice medium rare T-bone steak is to die for. A perfectly prepared unagi is mouthwatering. Even beef stew and spaghetti sauce made with ground beef or venison is scrum-diddly-umptious. I just love dead animals, so I can't bring myself to oppose eating them. It's not my fault they taste so good.
As a vegetarian, I don't think that eating animals is unethical, or inhumane, but I think that it is more right to avoid it.
In prehistoric times, us humans were herbivores. Evidence of that is our appendix (which looks like a shriveled up third intestine), which was once used to digest cellulose, in order to obtain as many nutrients from plants as possible. Our appendix is now useless to us, and performs no function what-so-ever, because after that, we evolved the ability to digest animal meat.
Since the killing method has nothing to do with the question at hand.
So with that being said, it is obvious that we weren't built to only eat plants, and that our ancestors found it impractical, causing our whole digestive system to update itself.
But as methods of accumulating food have advanced, that has not become a problem, and
a herbivorous diet was no longer difficult to maintain.
Consuming animals is not wrong, but I think that avoiding it if you can, would be more right.
While I am against animal cruelty and abuse and all of that, I am still going to eat meat. Humans and animals are not the same thing. Years of evolution have enabled us to be different from animals, that's the whole point of civilization! I don't understand the argument that humans and animals are inherently the same. That is not true. Do we both feel suffering? Yes, we do but humans and animals are not the same and they never will be. Animals should be treated with respect and kindness because that is how humans should treat each other, but understand that humans have spent thousands of years to separate ourselves from most of the animal kingdom. Sorry, animal rights people but humans have been eating animals for thousands and thousands of years, why is it suddenly wrong? Hunting is hunting. Animals hunt other animals. That's the circle of life. Of course it's wrong how the animals are killed when they're tortured and put in terrible environments. I agree that there should be laws against that, but consuming animals is not ethically wrong. We end up being animal food when we're dead too anyways.
No, consuming dead animals is not wrong, unless you eat them alive. I think (imo) killing some living things is not necessarily wrong, but to torture that is.
If you kill them without hurting them, maybe for some occasions like you see a dog got ran over by a car, and he's breaths away from dying, then you decide to put him out of misery, that way is okay.
I think in the end, it just comes down to did you kill them? And how did you kill them?
I'm going to try my best to refrain from sounding rude, but eating other animals is completely natural and is a practice found all throughout the animal kingdom. If the argument is for the sanctity of life, then it's hypocritical to claim that plan life is any less valuable than animal life.
When you think about the consumption of animals you are looking at the basic nature of things. Bigger animals eat smaller animals, and smaller in a sense where they are not as superior as the consumer. So if its ok for animals to eat other animals then why is not alright for humans to eat these animals? We are just completing the chain that nature has given us.
Animals kill other animals ALL THE TIME, with no regard for what it is killing if it is wild. You can't just go up to animals and say "hey, killing other animals are wrong, so how about you eat some food you can't even digest like grass?". Go ahead animals, when I die, wear my skin, eat my corpse, use my bones as instruments.