Is eating animals morally acceptable?
Statement of Intent: I will be arguing that the virtue ethicist response to eating animals is convincing and
reach the conclusion that eating animals is largely morally unacceptable unless for the right reason and
the right way e.g rearing your own animals. It is the most convincing because it is the most convincing
account on why eating animals is morally wrong and leads it to make a more accurate conclusion of when
it is morally acceptable to eat animals. The other fails to encapsulates the real reason why eating animals
is wrong. I will show that the Kantian Deontology fails to understand the moral relevance of taking care of
animals as a motive. I will then show that Utilitarianism despite doing a better job then Kantian deontology,
takes it too far with its speciest arguments. Fundamentally Virtue ethics encapsulates the real reason why
eating animals may not be morally acceptable the most and enables us to be more nuanced in realistic
cases where we can and cannot
RICE 1:
R: Kant’s reason against causing harm to animals (and therefore potentially disallowing the eating of
animals such as eating ones pet is for the wrong reasons and Kant’s theory fails to recognise the moral
worth of motives like taking care of animals. According to Kant, the only motive that has moral worth is
acting out of duty (doing your duty because it is your duty). We can apply this to eating animals.
According to Kant, animals don’t have rational will and therefore not ends in themselves and so can’t be
treated as means to ends we can eat them but we can have duties concerning animals only because they
are indirect duties to ourselves and other people (as if we are unkind to animals we may be unkind to
people and weaken the development of our good will (the only motive worth of moral value). We are only
showing care to animal because it is our duty to ourselves not because of the animal itself. It seems quite
counter-intuitive that harming an animal is wrong not because of the harm to the animal but to the harm of
ourselves. Kant fails to account the moral value of wanting to take care of animals and centres it around
‘your duty’. For example imagine if you offer to take care of someone's pet and feed them, and someone
thanks you you just respond with no problem its my duty to take care of my own duty rather then the
reason why you did it was for the pets wellbeing, if it was for the latter it wouldn’t have moral worth. Kant’s
deontology is quite anthropocentric and inhumane in this way and fails to consider how we consider
animals in a moral setting.
I: Kant could respond by saying that he is not trying to stop us from being motivated by our feelings
towards pets and animals. His point is that when we are choosing what to do, how we feel should not be
as important as what is morally right to do, our feelings shouldn't be the determining factor but that
doesn't mean we can’t be motivated by it. So we can be motivated for our love for animals but it shouldn’t
be the main reason for why we take care of them etc.
C: However, this is ‘one thought too many’. When we take care of animals and we don’t eat someone pet
should we think ‘ I’ll do this because it is someone’s pet AND it is my duty’. At that moment it misses the
importance of what pets mean to someone and its moral importance in upholding that and not treating
them like other animals. The reason why one shouldn’t eat someone pet is because it is someone’s pet
and that is it. Therefore Kant has still failed to encapsulates the value of certain motives. Utilitiarinaism
faces a similar issues but it is only with virtue ethics were good can be done automatically as the virtues
are developed constantly not just at a moral decision - constantly improvin it is a lifestyle essentially. More
crucially as well there are issues with focusing a normative ethical theory on who has a rational will. Kant
says that only those with a rational will have means to an ends and therefore we have moral duties
towards them and it is why animals who don’t have rational wills are not owed duties. However if we follow
this line of argument, we would have to say that people with severe mental disabilities are not owed duties
because they will never develop a rational will and this is a very uneasy conclusion to reach when in
reality we definitely have a duty to take care of them. Therefore basing the argument over who has a
Is eating animals morally acceptable? 1
Statement of Intent: I will be arguing that the virtue ethicist response to eating animals is convincing and
reach the conclusion that eating animals is largely morally unacceptable unless for the right reason and
the right way e.g rearing your own animals. It is the most convincing because it is the most convincing
account on why eating animals is morally wrong and leads it to make a more accurate conclusion of when
it is morally acceptable to eat animals. The other fails to encapsulates the real reason why eating animals
is wrong. I will show that the Kantian Deontology fails to understand the moral relevance of taking care of
animals as a motive. I will then show that Utilitarianism despite doing a better job then Kantian deontology,
takes it too far with its speciest arguments. Fundamentally Virtue ethics encapsulates the real reason why
eating animals may not be morally acceptable the most and enables us to be more nuanced in realistic
cases where we can and cannot
RICE 1:
R: Kant’s reason against causing harm to animals (and therefore potentially disallowing the eating of
animals such as eating ones pet is for the wrong reasons and Kant’s theory fails to recognise the moral
worth of motives like taking care of animals. According to Kant, the only motive that has moral worth is
acting out of duty (doing your duty because it is your duty). We can apply this to eating animals.
According to Kant, animals don’t have rational will and therefore not ends in themselves and so can’t be
treated as means to ends we can eat them but we can have duties concerning animals only because they
are indirect duties to ourselves and other people (as if we are unkind to animals we may be unkind to
people and weaken the development of our good will (the only motive worth of moral value). We are only
showing care to animal because it is our duty to ourselves not because of the animal itself. It seems quite
counter-intuitive that harming an animal is wrong not because of the harm to the animal but to the harm of
ourselves. Kant fails to account the moral value of wanting to take care of animals and centres it around
‘your duty’. For example imagine if you offer to take care of someone's pet and feed them, and someone
thanks you you just respond with no problem its my duty to take care of my own duty rather then the
reason why you did it was for the pets wellbeing, if it was for the latter it wouldn’t have moral worth. Kant’s
deontology is quite anthropocentric and inhumane in this way and fails to consider how we consider
animals in a moral setting.
I: Kant could respond by saying that he is not trying to stop us from being motivated by our feelings
towards pets and animals. His point is that when we are choosing what to do, how we feel should not be
as important as what is morally right to do, our feelings shouldn't be the determining factor but that
doesn't mean we can’t be motivated by it. So we can be motivated for our love for animals but it shouldn’t
be the main reason for why we take care of them etc.
C: However, this is ‘one thought too many’. When we take care of animals and we don’t eat someone pet
should we think ‘ I’ll do this because it is someone’s pet AND it is my duty’. At that moment it misses the
importance of what pets mean to someone and its moral importance in upholding that and not treating
them like other animals. The reason why one shouldn’t eat someone pet is because it is someone’s pet
and that is it. Therefore Kant has still failed to encapsulates the value of certain motives. Utilitiarinaism
faces a similar issues but it is only with virtue ethics were good can be done automatically as the virtues
are developed constantly not just at a moral decision - constantly improvin it is a lifestyle essentially. More
crucially as well there are issues with focusing a normative ethical theory on who has a rational will. Kant
says that only those with a rational will have means to an ends and therefore we have moral duties
towards them and it is why animals who don’t have rational wills are not owed duties. However if we follow
this line of argument, we would have to say that people with severe mental disabilities are not owed duties
because they will never develop a rational will and this is a very uneasy conclusion to reach when in
reality we definitely have a duty to take care of them. Therefore basing the argument over who has a
Is eating animals morally acceptable? 1
