Notably, the argument that a theist believes that it is permissible to raise and eat animals like cows and pigs on own will is out dated. It is true the scripture says that man should dominate over animals and nature. However that did not mean that man should take pressure in animals and nature. It did not mean that man should take pressure on animals he has raised when others are starving. Arguably, people should eat animal meat but not for pressure.
Reasons to doubt the conclusion
Ethical egoism has affected any people making them think of only personal needs and wants forting about others. God gave permission to the man to look after nature and animals not to take pressure in them. In the past, maybe it could be right to argue in that route because the world had pretty of food and resources for human use. Nevertheless, today’s world has changed with many cases of drought and famine. Every year millions of people die of malnutrition and related health problems (Rachels, 2012). Notably, the problem lies in the point where each one is concerned with personal needs and wants forgetting that there are other less fortunate. If we argue on personal basis forgetting others, then one would take pressure on their belongings leaving others to starve to death. It is not bad to take animals meat but it is unethical to take pressure when others are starving.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Arguably, the psychological egoism has affected many people too making them selfish and be concerned with only personal desires. Many people are affected by psychological egoism such that the only thing that one is capable of desiring is ultimately own interest. Notably, psychological egoism denies a person a chance to desire anything else except those that give him pressure. People affected by psychological egoism will not in most cases care about other people’s welfare or happiness. The person who argues that God gave permission to look after animals and nature and so one should eat animals at own pressure is likely to be affected by psychological egoism (Feinberg, 2007). One should be concerned about other peoples, animals and nature welfare too. But it is a fact that many people will consider own affairs first then the others will follow.
On the other hand, it is ironical that a person argues that people should raise animals and have rights to butcher them at own will, then the same people are complaining of equality among them. If we consider that people are animals with special sense then one will not fight for equality. On the other hand people will not feel pressure killing and eating other animals. However, not all animals are equal when we include man as part of animals. Man has special sense that other animals do not have. Among people again are more differences in knowledge and possession. However, the writer argues that a day may come when all other animal creation may acquire rights like human being. Taking pressure in animals is considered the same measure as being racist or any other discrimination that people fight against. The writer argues that, if people would fight for mare rights amongst them then should animals be given right to live by people (Singer, 1974). Therefore, ii is negative to argue that animals are kept to be butchered for pressure. They should be considered to have rights.
We can also agree that one is permitted to raise animals and eat them. But the reason that the scripture states that man should have authority over animals and nature is not satisfying. It is true that animals are in many cases eaten by man but the main reason for eating is having pressure which is defined as satisfaction of mind. Animal’s meat is food in many communities but the scenario that it is taken in certain occasions and people get satisfaction than when they eat it more than when they eat other types of food is not a good reason (Singer, 1974). We agree that people may eat raise and eat animals but with a reason that it is their food not that they are proud to eat them. In that case, a carnivore in the forest will also eat other animals because they are the only food that it can eat. It is not questionable because we understand that that is the source of food. However, when it comes to people eating animals, they try to justify their action using the scripture because their case is questionable. Man has a lot of other types of food that he can use living the animal to survive. However, man will always take pressure in eating animals which is not right.
The theist can argue about the ethical egoism saying that it is upon ones hard work to have pressure on his own possession. It is true that everybody should have freedom to use personal property at own will. But on the other hand it is not ethical for one to have luxury when a neighbor is lacking the most basic meals. Rachels argues that one should be concerned about others (Rachels, 2012). However, taking pressure on personal belonging is not a sin. Neither do we take it to be the worst thing. It is upon the theist to consume part of his possession to enjoy his work too. We may also consider him selfish when he only thinks of himself first but in real sense he raised the animals alone with the aim of eating them.
To sum up the discussion, raising and eating is not a sin as the scripture illustrates and the fact that animal meat is part of human food. However, people should not take pressure in having all they want when others on the other side are starving. People should be human and have a helping heart which will help reduce malnutrition and hunger deaths. People should also be concerned on others affairs and stop the trait of selfishness.
References
Feinberg, J. (2007). Psychological egoism. Ethical Theory: An Anthology, 13, 167-177.
Rachels, J. (2012). Ethical egoism. Ethical Theory: An Anthology, 14, 193.
Singer, P. (1974). All animals are equal. Philosophic Exchange, 5(1), 6.
