Which are the key points in Kantian Ethics which raises the question that maybe Kantian ethics isn’t a good approach to this? A counter argument for the above argument in support the statement that ‘Kant’s ethical theory is a good approach to euthanasia is the fact the moral value of an action comes from the action itself. This is because it’s a deontological argument. This means it’s intrinsically correct it’s not swayed by emotion. This is good when considering euthanasia because there is bound to be a lot of emotion involved when trying to decide whether it’s wrong or right to go forward with euthanasia for the person itself or family member having to choose.
Paxton George concludes that vegetarian diets are not morally superior to diets that include the consumption of animal products; she advocates a view that treats dietary choices as expressing “intersubjectively valid aesthetic [as opposed to moral] values” (171). In what follows, I address Adams’s and Paxton George’s concerns and lay out a contextually sensitive, virtue ethics-based approach to ethical eating that is both morally defensible and readily practicable. I believe Paxton George is correct to claim that Adams’s unqualified endorsement of feminist-vegetarianism/ veganism actually privileges adult males in industrialized countries.
There is no guarantee that raw ground beef or sprouts will be free of certain harmful bacteria. These foods provide a favorable environment for bacterial growth, whereas, the production process does not include a step to reduce these bacteria, such as cooking or pasteurization. For these foods, irradiation provides a bacteria-killing step. However, one association disagrees that the issue and claims that irradiation only covers up problems that the meat and poultry industry should solve, increasing the fecal contamination that results from speeded up slaughter and decreased federal inspection. Per Organic Consumers Association, Irradiation is a ‘magic bullet’ that will enable the company to say that the product was ‘clean’ when it left the packing plant.
As one of the most acclaimed philosophers in history, Aristotle felt as though everything exists for a reason, with a hierarchy of existence, as the less rational should serve the more rational. Immanuel Kant added on to Aristotle’s philosophy, by insisting that animals are incapable of rationale, and so they may be viewed as purely means to an end, with man representative of that end. The western tradition and system of beliefs was rocked at its foundations however, by various modern discoveries. Darwin began the questioning of the hierarchy of life, when he concluded that human beings were animals as well, possessing a natural origin, similar to that of the animal world. Darwin believed that differences between humans and animals were not that of kind, but of degree.
If only they can change the environment, he urges the animals, things will improve. He is a pragmatist. What his philosophy ignores is the thing that really counts – morality. Man is not the real enemy; the real enemy of the animals (and of course the humans too) is their own sinfulness. The animals that most clearly show the destructive sinfulness, with all its selfishness, exploitation and betrayal, are the pigs.
Vegetarians are strictly people who do not eat meat, eggs or dairy. Vegans take vegetarianism to a different extreme. Vegans do not eat any item that comes from an animal. This includes any meat from an animal, seafood, eggs, dairy, and even honey. Some people choose veganism for dietary reasons.
Meat Morality Many animal rights activists claim that the act of eating meat contributes to animal cruelty. Michael Pollan would refute this claim saying that we, as humans, can and should eat animals as long as we treat them with respect while they are alive. In his article, “An Animal’s Place”, Michael Pollan addresses the moral issue of whether or not it is right to consume animals. He goes to great lengths to research this topic to find a justification to eat meat. He does a great job supporting his opinion that we should be able to eat animals, by using narratives, compare and contrasts, and citing experts that he researched.
Humans are creatures of circumstance. However, there are those respected voices in the anthropological world such as Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson that contend we are not. Instead, we are slaves to our biological makeup. According to their essay, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, it is difficult to escape our evolutionary past and we are, as a result, forced to act according to our inherent nature. Both Peterson and Wrangham believe that war and human violence exist because of inherited behavioral tendencies.
People are a subset of the planet. Ethics and morality do cross over but I agree that they are not synonyms. Morality is certainly a part of ethics but not all ethics is a part of morality so the two are not always interchangeable or synonyms. Ethics is a guide to doing stuff as is morality a guide to doing stuff to live socially, but you can be doing something that is ethical for the given point of view while at the same time it is unethical and immoral from a social point of view. - Torturing a dog is unethical and wrong as there is no reason to inflict that pain on the animal but it’s not immoral as that is the wrong term to use because another human is not involved.
Support For DeWaal’s Thesis DeWaal claims that when defining morality, the act of morality is not important. He suggests that we focus on the underlining of morality, so when we look at the food sharing (with chimpanzee) we should focus on the levels of tolerance and sensitivity to needs etc. He thinks that just as Darwin looked past the underlying emotion and intentions, we are to also do and that it’s not about niceness of animals that matter; what is relevant is if they have capacities for exchanging and revenge for enforcing