Week 7 PHL

 Half Page

Discuss the moral implications of eating nonhuman animals. Respond to one of the following: 

• Is it morally permissible to raise and kill animals to eat them in our society, where nutritious alternatives to animal foods are readily available? If we were somewhere where there were inadequate non-animal foods, would that make a difference to the morality of using animals for food? Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum-ranking, and consequences. Which ethical theory, based on its core principles, is most consistent with your outlook on consuming animals? Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLOs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
• Do animals have rights, and humans have a moral obligation to uphold those rights, or is it the case that animals do not have rights but that humans have an ethical obligation not to oppress animals? Explain your answer. Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a Kantian would say according to its core principles of universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity. Which ethical theory, based on its core principles, is most consistent with your outlook on consuming animals? Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLOs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)