Animal Replaceability Argument

919 Words2 Pages

The prior existence a view is to that we behave or act in way that increases the pleasure in the existing animal’s life. This view gives pattern that it is wrong to kill animals for our own pleasure to make food. According to this view, we need to provide opportunity to enjoy pleasure in their lives. This point of view, encouraging the awareness to protect animals provided them safe environment.
The total view is to that we have to increase pleasure in this world. One way to increase the capacity by producing more individual’s persons who can enjoy the pleasure. The total view is largely used to protect the right to eat animals throughout the world. The argument presented is that formers brought up these animals in the farming houses. So, …show more content…

This argument is defended by the Total view, which gives us suggestions that killing animal for utility pleasure is not bad. Infect it will increase pleasure worldly life. This pleasure provides advantage, happiness and benefit. The ethical objection grows that human being killing animals for their own pleasure to eat meat. The replaceability argument provides solution to the ethical objection in the form of replacement. This means if a one animal is killed for human pleasure is replaced with another animal. So, this argument clearly justified the killing of animal endorsing the Total views.
[Question_7]
Morally it is wrong to eat non human animals because there are many alternatives for human beings available in this world. If animal is the only way of human food consumption then it is justifiable but in this case many other solutions available. It is very painful to kill any creature for human pleasure. In my point of view it is totally immoral to killing of non human animals because if human being had accident bleed for few minutes is really painful to bear same like shredding animal’s blood is not bearable as …show more content…

He build his argument that if you are living peaceful and comfortable life while other people dying because of hunger, poverty and you didn’t care about them then it is terribly with our attitude it is against the morals. He said that if something which in our control we can make difference with our small sacrifice then we should needs to do it. We can reduce the level of death cause famine in various parts of this beautiful world. He urges to participate in famine relief funds for sacrificing small portion of our luxury life.
I believed that Singer’s way of thinking is absolutely fabulous. I fully endorsed his position in this regard because if we support in famine relief fund then we may be save many lives. We may be doing know someone personally but that is possibility that he or she is whole house guardian. We can save someone’s brother, husband and son etc, with this small effort and sacrifice. A rich nation’s should need to participate and take such revolutionary steps to make this world better place for the human

Open Document