Humans eat food to survive and most of them do not consider the impacts of what they eat as far as they like the taste and do not bother about the causes and consequences. Lomasky in his article ‘Is it wrong to eat animals?’ considers that it is alright to eat animals and animals meat as it serves a purpose of eating well, and eating to make the human life more fulfilling. Lomasky also believes that some practices including eating if not performed, life is diminished completely. This paper will argue for the animals and against Lomasky’s take about eating animals being right.
This is a very valid point, because since when animals are not able to express them it does not mean that they are irrational and are insignificant if killed for food. The moral code of humanity does not allow humans to deny the right of life to any animal regardless of the value the animals bring forward. If nature turns the other way and animals start considering humans as their resources, the rational human will then again contend against it by proving the negligible value of animals and terming their killing humans as completely irrational. Thus, the same question faces humans today which asks them that if they are willingly killing animals for fulfilling their taste buds, what kind of a rational behavior is that and how can it be proved to be rational under the lens of morality and ethics. It is required for humanity to adopt an attitude of universal benevolence (Linzey).
Animals are inherent beings and have inherent value which is denied by majority of humans, especially those who encourage killing animals for fulfilling their taste buds. The action is morally unreliable and disproves the claim of rationality in humans. Animals must not be seen as resources, but as sentient beings that are to be respected and nurtured.