The Sole Purpose of Domesticating Animals - Essay Example

Descartes and Bentham on Whether to Eat Animals The question as to whether human beings should eat animals or not has aroused varied contentions among different philosophers. On one hand are those who believe that we should eat animals. On the other hand are those who contend that it is unethical for us to eat animals. Descartes argues that animals do not feel pain even if they act as if they do (Pickering and Norman 513). Perhaps this is the strong agreement for the claim that we should eat animals. Conversely, Bentham argues that animals actually animals do feel pain and therefore should not be eaten. This paper provides an insightful analysis of the thoughts of Descartes and Bentham regarding whether we should eat animals or not As mentioned earlier, Descartes argued that animals do not feeling pain even though they act as if they do. They are like machines, which can be used at anytime for any purpose. Unlike human beings, animals do not feel pain at all. This implies that when they are killed for consumption, they do not feel any pain for it. For this reason, animals can be used as food, just like the vegetables and the fruits. The fact that animal kept and domesticated just like plants implies that they can be used by human beings for food (Warren 164) . Their necks can be cut off the same way the plant tips are cut and they do not complain. In of support of the reasoning that the animals should be eaten, Descartes argues that animals do not have rights, unlike the human beings. The same way the plants are used they should be used to provide food for the human beings who are far much superior to them. Human beings do feel pain especially when they are cut. This, according to Descartes, is unlike to happen to the animal (Pickering and Norman 513). Animals should be treated like the machines since they are like the objects; the same way we use a tractor to plough. Moreover, he argues that anything that feels pain should be pitied. Human beings are emotional beings; if the animals were feeling pain they would be pitied. According to him, it would be so remorseful to see the animals go through the painful state of being slaughtered. Since them do not feel any of these they should be killed according the human being’s wish. It can be so remorseful to see a fellow human being slaughter unlike an animal. The cry of the fellow human being can make another human being feel sad or cry as a result. If animals were emotional, they would cry if they see a human being slaughter a fellow animal. Animals should be eaten as they eat one another, this show that they were made for food. Human beings do not eat each other, animal like the pig eat up the bodies of the fellow animal. This clearly shows that these animals were clearly put in the world to act as food for the human beings and other fellow animals. If the animals were like human beings they wouldn’t be eating the bodies of their fellow animal. The animal could not be eating up the bodies of the fellow animals if they really valued themselves. When the lion attract a group of herbivore it can kill as many animals as it can as long as the animals are in its reach, this shows that the animals are just there to be used up and eaten. This In contrast to humans, animals do not have a spirit. This implies that whenever they are killed, that marks the end of them. Descartes believes that killing animals is the same as destroying a plant. Human beings have a soul, which leaves them after they die. If animals possessed such a soul, it would be a grave mistake killing them for consumption as food. If the animals have a spirit we would be hearing of some case of stubborn spirits haunting the human beings for killing them. This is an indication that when the hearts of animals stop working, no soul leaves their bodies. This reason justifies why the human beings are very important and the animals are inferior. In support of animals should be eaten, the Descartes states that the animals were to be used for food from the ancient time. Although some animals are known to be unclean, according to the holy books like the Quran and the bible. The humans were given the mandate to kill the animals and eat their body up as it was food. These animals were created for the good of the human beings; they can be used to do work and eaten. The Supreme Being, who was responsible for the creation of the human beings, gave these instructions. The animals should therefore be used as food and eaten up by the humans as a way of obeying the command given by the supreme beings. The final assertion in support of eating animals as suggested by Descartes is that animals are also subjects to human being. They are kept and controlled by these human beings. Just like plant, animals are to be used for the benefit of the human beings. If the animals would be rearing human beings, they would never be killed. Nowhere on the earth have we ever heard of the animals in control over the human beings, there is no case that has been report of the animals being in control. Since man is in control of them, they should be used for food and killed as the human being wish. On the other hand, Bentham explains why we should not eat animals. According to him animals actually can feel pain and this was a moral consideration for the animals (Wilson 22). For this reason, he believes they should not be slaughtered and eaten. Human beings are known to be emotional beings and therefore should not subject the animals to pain especially when they are killing them. It is against the wish of the humanity to subject other beings to great suffering. This explains why Bentham suggests that animals should not be killed and should be left to die a natural death. With the aim of proving that animals feel pain, just like human beings, Bentham argues that animals do cry so much when somebody hits them a stone. Some animals do have some signs of emotions and therefore should not be killed as this would be an emotion tormenting. Animals like the dolphins mourn the death of their member and carry around their fallen comrade as a way of mourning, they burry the body after a few days of grief under the sea. The chimpanzees are known to be great mourners. Just like humans, they mourning the death of their beloved. Elephants too mourn the loss of the herd member(Kenneth 311). This is an implication that animals are also emotional and feel the less of death. Thus, the same way the humans fear death is the same way animals fear being killed. Similarly, the same way a humans feel when they have lost their beloved ones is the same way animals feel when their fellow animals are killed. Moreover, some animals are also associated with the Supreme Being according to some religions like the Hindu. For instance, the cow is a representation of one of the Hindu gods.. Since these animals have such a great values in the lives of these people they should not be killed as that will be disrespecting the Supreme Being. It will like rejecting the being by killing him up. Since the animals have such value they should not be subjected to this suffering of being killed. This is where I disagree that the animals should not be eaten. Some scholars argue that animals also have their rights. For this reason, they believe that the animals should not be killed an eaten. The animals’ rights dictate the way the humans treat these animals. They also govern how the animals should be handled (Harrison 33). Since they have the moral rights they should not be subjected to pain especially when they are killed. Human beings should choose to eat the plants alone since they do not have the moral rights like the animals. Since the sensory system of the animals is very active the humans must not kill and eat the animals up as food. In conclusion, the debate on whether human beings should eat animals has attracted both proponents and opponents. Proponents believe that animals are like objects and therefore should be eaten by humans. They also believe that the sole purpose of domesticating animals is to benefit human beings. One great philosopher that supported the eating of animals was Descartes. On the other hand, opponents believe that animal should not be eaten as they are emotional and feel pain, just like humans. They argue that since human being beings are emotional beings they should be emotional with the animals pain. They should not allow the animal to be subjected to great pain especially during the time of killing. The same way they would feel if they see their fellow human being slaughtered they should have mercy on the animals. Bentham is one such opponent. Works Cited Harrison, Peter. “Do Animals Feel Pain?” Philosophy 66(11): 25-40, 2003. Print. Kenneth, Goodpaster. “On Being Morally Considerable”, The Journal of Philosophy 75(3): 308- 25, 2008. Print. Pickering, Francis and Norman, Richard. “Some Animals are More Equal than others”, Philosophy 53(1): 507-27. 1978. Print. Warren, Mary Anne. “Difficulties with the Strong Animal Rights Position”, Between the Species 2 (3): 161-73, 2007. Print. Wilson, Scott. “Indirect Duties to Animals”, The Journal of Value Inquiry, 36: 17-27, 2002. Print. Read More