In class this week we discussed the article by Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights.” Many students in the classroom had difficulties debating on if eating meat is ethically right or wrong, perhaps if the animals’ living conditions changed would it be more morally justified? Regan, and I, view the answer to the question as no, it is not morally justified. It is not morally justified to use other species as a resource that is not necessary. Humans are developed to not need meat, whereas other species require meat in their diets.
It is interesting to me to think about if you had to hunt your own food, kill and skin the animal yourself, would you be able to do this morally? It’s no different than eating a steak, its just situationally different. The hard work is done for you. Would you still do it or would you just take the gatherer approach and eat fruits and vegetables?
The only situation I find myself in a moral dilemma about is Regan’s view on animal testing. Animal testing itself is still using animals as our own resources to find cures or treatments for our own species. I would suggest on testing on consenting humans, but not much testing would get done. Also, smaller animals like rats have a quicker generation time than humans. It takes about 20 years for a human to fully develop but only a few months or so for other animals. So the short generation times seems ideal for research, but if it can be morally backed is another question.
I completely agree with you. Being a vegetarian, I can definitely relate to your argument. My diet consists primarily of vegetables and forms of protein such as tofu and soy. I feel no need to eat meat to survive, so I think the point you made about humans being developed as to not need meat is very accurate. Also, I think the point you made about hunting, skinning and eating the meat at firsthand vs. eating pre-hunted/pre-skinned meat is an interesting one, as neither case is necessarily more or less moral than the other in my opinion.
Another problem regarding the removal of animal testing concerns human test subjects. People who work as test subjects for studies are often at risk of being exploited or subject to poor condition. If testing could only be done on consenting humans not animals, more problems could arise for these human test subjects if they are the only option for researchers. It raises the question of whether the removal of animal testing would negatively impact humans, and if so, what would be the moral decision.
One problem I have with Regan’s argument is that he argues that any beings that have innate value have it to the same extent, but that eating meat is morally wrong only in some instances. If innate value applies to all beings in the same way, shouldn’t the morality of eating meat? The obvious counterargument to this is carnivores and species that can only eat meat. It seems unfair to say that they should starve instead of eating meat. In response to this I’m going to post a link to a video I saw the other day. In this video, a python eats a crocodile live. I do not know if this will change anyone’s views about the morality of animals eating each other, but I think it poses a good question: is animals eating each other moral?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVRhRzE_AkQ
I think you raise an interesting point with animals and test subjects, though I find it hard to understand how you are ok with animal testing but against eating them for meat. When an animals is used for meat, it’s body is at least providing us with resources after living a ‘normal’ life, but as a test subject it could be put under mass amounts of pain, all the while losing its value as a resource.
I did not agree to animal testing, I was trying to raise a point that animal testing is efficient. I was hoping some of the comments could help point the morality of animal testing in the right direction, because I am morally “on the fence” about this viewpoint with animals being viewed as resources.
I also don’t understand how an animal would lose its value as a resource through animal testing? It is being used as a resource to humans in finding treatments and cures. That seems more important than a meal that could be composed of other substances besides meat. This does go against Reagan’s view of not wanting animals to be viewed as resources.
I agree that animal testing does present a better option than testing on humans. If the testing is humane and necessary, then it can be beneficial not only for humans, but for animals as well. It would take a long time to approve human trials, and even then, it would be hard to get volunteers.