Peter Singer argues that all aninals are equal, that man should not use other animals even for food?

Question

Animals have rights, they feel pain they have emotions, in one word they suffer physically and emotionally. Why should man use the animals for food. is it the right of man to eat meat

Answer 1

Animals eat other animals, man is part of the food chain, we are built to be omnivores, eating meat and vegetation. This doesn't mean animals have to suffer while they live, or die slowly or be pumped full of hormones and chemicals. Its the meat industry that is cruel, not the eating of meat in general. I do believe that animals have feelings, but the lion doesn't stop to think about that when it kills a gazelle, I will keep eating my free range chicken and avoid mass produced caged chicken, force fed veal, and chemical laden beef.

Answer 2

In a perfect world, I would agree that no animal should eat another. However, this is not a perfect world. Furthermore, many will argue that animals do not have any rights, neither do animals have emotions nor do they have thoughts. The most advanced animal is man. As such he is the 'God' of all other animals and does as he pleases.

Once again, in a perfect world there would be no need for one animal to devour another. It is a terrible thing to kill and devour...

Answer 3

A lot of people across the globe have begun fancying vegetarianism.

But, where can you draw a line? Is milk OK? Is fish no animal? Are eggs OK?

The truth is that in order to sustain every second of our life, we are unknowingly killing millions of lives breeding within our body.
And mind you, food is essentially to sustain life - hence if and when a crunch situation arises, no argument would hold water.

Answer 4

Man is designed to eat vegetarian food.... We just manage to cook the meat and force the stomach to reconstitute the indigestible form to a digestible form, losing some energy thereby and then claim it to be our food. Only a man can forsake a whole wonderful gift like a human body , just to appease a couple of inches of taste buds !
For survival purpose, eating a food for which we are not designed is reasonable, not otherwise .

Answer 5

CAREFUL... pretty soon he's going to be telling us that plants also "feel" pain and "have emotions" and will suggest that we not eat the fruits, equivalent to "eggs" for reproduction (like chicken eggs) and that we should eat dirt and rocks... and not drink water since it contains microscopic life that also "feels" pain and "have emotions"... sheesh! Gimme a break! Don't we have enough loonies running around on the loose already?

Answer 6

"suffering is a prerequisite for rights." in case you write that in the time of an examination, you fail. Singer is a utilitarian... there exists no rights to utilitarians. At no evaluate his argumentation does he pretend that the two people or animals have rights -- to Singer, killing isn't incorrect, despite the fact that if it could grow to be circumstantially incorrect. you may desire to get that it extremely is diverse from deontology: it extremely is the no longer the action in and of itself that's incorrect, despite the fact that if it extremely is attractiveness in precise circumstances. it extremely is an ethic of outcomes, totally of outcomes. 2 concepts are on the foundation of his thesis: -thought of amusement (to pursue excitement as much as obtainable and to dodge soreness as much as obtainable); -the belief of equality (all people's excitement quest is equivalent). Now, there is surely no longer something flawed approximately this. despite the fact that if, he's criticized (and with great reasons) interior a similar way Bentham and generators have been criticized: what on earth does justify the belief of amusement via fact surely the moral foundation? His argument against that's intrinsically susceptible: he says that it is the overcoming of egoism interior the pursuit of those pleasures (by way of pondering all people equivalent) that makes it ethical and he proposes that it extremely is as much as deontologists to tutor that we'd desire to continually certainly pass previous the extension of self-interest in ethical affairs. So, in case you prefer to attack Singer, initiate with what's actual: he states that the belief of amusement and its equivalent extension is by some skill an immanent thought of morality -- he by no skill (nor did ever every physique) justified its fee.

Answer 7

how can you understand the animal fully unless you eat, partaking of its inner parts. so how do we do this, partake in what one is. jesus ate in the feild with the disciples and was said to be sinning. whenasked why he was doing this, he replied that he was there for the lost and that this was the way to help them. i must become what they are so that i can save. paul said the same thing. ibecome a roman or a gentile or a jew, whatever they i shall become. the reson is that if you are one of them then you are more likely to get them to listen, one gentle wind at a time, to you. for i put on sin so that i MIGHT save them.

Answer 8

Pete Singer doesn't love animals! He hates plants and would love to see us all eaten first. Plants have feelings too.

Answer 9

read genesis in the bible

Answer 10

....................... how can people eat their friends ......................