|
In many societies, controversy and debate have arisen over the ethics of eating animals. The most commonly given ethical objection to meat-eating is that, for most people living in the developed world, it is not necessary for their survival or health; hence, it is concluded, slaying animals just because people like the taste of meat is wrong and morally unjustifiable.〔Harnad, Stevan (2013) (Luxe, nécessité, souffrance: Pourquoi je ne suis pas carnivore ). Québec humaniste 8(1): 10-13〕 Ethical vegetarians may also object to the practices underlying the production of meat, or cite concerns about animal welfare, animal rights, environmental ethics, and religious scruples. In response, proponents of meat-eating have adduced various scientific, nutritional, cultural, and religious arguments in support of the practice. Some meat-eaters only object to rearing animals in certain ways, such as in factory farms, or killing them with cruelty; others avoid only certain meats, such as veal or foie gras. == Overview == Peter Singer (Princeton University and University of Melbourne professor and pioneer of the animal liberation movement) has long argued that, if it is possible to survive and be healthy without eating meat, fish, dairy, or eggs, one ought to choose that option instead of causing unnecessary harm to animals. In ''Animal Liberation'', Singer argued that, because non-human animals feel, they should be treated according to utilitarian ethics. Singer's work has since been widely built upon by philosophers, both those who agree〔Mark Rowlands (2013). ''Animal rights: All that matters''. (Hodder & Stoughton )〕 and those who do not,〔Roger Scruton (2006) ''Animal rights and wrongs'' (Bloomsbury Publishing )〕 and it has been applied by animal rights advocates〔Sue Donaldson & Will Kymlicka. (2011). ''Zoopolis: A political theory of animal rights''. (Oxford University Press ).〕 as well as by ethical vegetarians and vegans. Ethical vegetarians point out that the reasons for not hurting or killing animals are similar to the reasons for not hurting or killing humans. They argue that killing an animal, like killing a human, can only be justified in extreme circumstances; consuming a living creature just for its taste, for convenience, or out of habit is not justifiable. Some ethicists have added that humans, unlike other animals, are morally conscious of their behavior and have a choice; this is why there are laws governing human behavior, and why it is subject to moral standards. Ethical vegetarian concerns have become more widespread in developed countries, particularly because of the spread of factory farming, more open and graphic documentation of what human meat-eating entails for its victims,〔Eisnitz, G. A. (2009). ''Slaughterhouse: The shocking story of greed, neglect, and inhumane treatment inside the US meat industry''. (Prometheus Books ). Chicago〕 and environmental consciousness. Some proponents of meat-eating argue that the current mass demand for meat has to be satisfied with a mass-production system, regardless of the welfare of animals. Less extreme proponents argue that practices like well-managed free-range rearing and the consumption of hunted animals, particularly from species whose natural predators have been significantly eliminated, could satisfy the demand for mass-produced meat.〔Pluhar, E. B. (2010). '(Meat and morality: Alternatives to factory farming ). ''Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics'', 23(5), 455-468.〕 Reducing the worldwide massive food waste would also contribute to reduce meat waste and therefore save animals.〔September 2013. "Food Waste: Key To Ending World Hunger". Forbes. Retrieved 8 November 2014 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/09/16/food-waste-a-key-to-ending-world-hunger/〕〔"Stop food waste". Retrieved 8 November 2014 from http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/sustainability/index_en.htm〕 Indeed, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, about a third of the food for human consumption is wasted globally (around 1.3 billion tons per year). Some have described unequal treatment of humans and animals as a form of speciesism such as anthropocentrism or human-centeredness. Val Plumwood (1993, 1996) has argued that anthropocentrism plays a role in green theory that is analogous to androcentrism in feminist theory and ethnocentrism in anti-racist theory. Plumwood calls human-centredness "anthropocentrism" to emphasize this parallel. By analogy with racism and sexism, Melanie Joy has dubbed meat-eating "carnism". The animal rights movement seeks an end to the rigid moral and legal distinction drawn between human and non-human animals, an end to the status of animals as property, and an end to their use in the research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries.〔(Manifesto for the Evolution of Animals’ Legal Status in the Civil Code of Quebec )〕〔("Pets no longer just part of furniture in France" ). ''The Telegraph''. 16 April 2014〕 Peter Singer, in his ethical philosophy of what it is to be a "person", argues that livestock animals feel enough to deserve better treatment than they receive. Many thinkers have questioned the morality not only of the double standard underlying speciesism but also the double standard underlying the fact that people support treatment of cows, pigs, and chickens that they would never allow with pet dogs, cats, or birds.〔 Jay Bost, agroecologist and winner of ''The New York Times'' essay contest on the ethics of eating meat, summarized his argument in the following way: "eating meat raised in specific circumstances is ethical; eating meat raised in other circumstances is unethical" in regard to environmental usage. He proposes that if "ethical is defined as living in the most ecologically benign way, then in fairly specific circumstances, of which each eater must educate himself, eating meat is ethical." The specific circumstances he mentions include using animals to cycle nutrients and convert sun to food. Ethicists like Tom Regan and Peter Singer define "ethical" in terms of suffering rather than ecology. Mark Rowlands argues that the real determinant of whether it is ethical to cause suffering is whether there is any ''vital need'' to cause it; if not, then causing it is unethical.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ethics of eating meat」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|