Killing Animals for Food Is Not Necessarily

Killing Animals for Food Is Not Necessarily Wrong

Over time, vegetarians have presented a wide range of reasons as to why eating meat and/or any other product derived from animals is wrong. In seeking to support their position, most vegetarians cite the need to uphold animal rights. In the recent past, the number of people turning to vegetarian diet has been increasing steadily. However, regardless of this, it is important to note that a careful review of literature clearly demonstrates that the consumption of meat and/or other products derived from animals is not necessarily a bad thing.

In Zacharia's (2012) opinion, "the market for vegan food is booming." This effectively means that the number of those joining the vegetarian bandwagon is steadily increasing. However, a vast majority of the population still believes that there is nothing wrong with eating meat or any animal produce. It could be right.

To begin with, killing animals for food can be viewed as a way of controlling their numbers. This is more so the case for domesticated animals. With that in mind, avoiding animal meat would lead to an unprecedented increase in the population of animals. Killing such animals for food can hence be viewed as a 'necessary evil' aimed at averting a possible catastrophe.

Secondly, humans are inherently omnivorous largely because they are capable of consuming both flesh and plants. Indeed, this argument can be taken further by pointing out that just like carnivores; human beings possess a canine tooth that is relatively sharp. In carnivores, this tooth is specially designed or adapted to tear flesh apart. If human beings were not meant to eat meat, then they would not be equipped with a canine tooth just like other meat eaters.

Although there are many reasons as to why killing animals for food is not necessarily a bad thing, there is a need to identify some dissenting arguments. It can be noted that most vegetarians are convinced that killing animals for food amounts to animal cruelty. According to George, the moral status of animals has been defended by a number of philosophers including but not limited to Siegel (2000). Such individuals in the author's own words "claim that animals are our equals and that we may not kill them for food" (George, 2000, p.77). To some extent, this argument is true. For instance, a cow being slaughtered for beef most definitely experiences a great deal of pain and suffering. However, though convincing, this argument is largely defective. To begin with, inflicting pain on an animal can be justified in some instances. However, in the opinion of Rachels, any form of suffering should be accompanied by a corresponding valid justification (1997). This is in line with utilitarian ethics. Utilitarianism as Geisler (2010, p.30) points out "implies that the end justifies any means necessary to attain it." In one way or the other, slaughtering animals for food definitely inflicts pain on the concerned animals. However, in my opinion, inflicting such pain can be justified taking into consideration the intended end i.e. The provision of food for human consumption.