本篇作文代写-动物的苦难与伦理讲了以蔑视和完全无视动物生存的基本权利的态度对待动物是人类非理性的缩影，因为当动物违背自己的意愿被杀死时，这显然是对弱小动物使用武力的标志。这一点在动物因被攻击而产生的抵抗中表现得很明显，这使它成为针对人类的严重的不道德行为。以同样的漠视对待他人是不道德的，因为这是杀害理性动物。本篇作文代写文章由加拿大第一论文 Assignment First辅导网整理，供大家参考阅读。
Critical analysis of the double standards employed in treating humans and animals in different ways
Utilitarianism and eating animals
Humans are considered as rational owing to their acts of reasoning, contemplation, and taking rational actions, which is further based on simple principles of their influencing philosophy. Out of these principles, utilitarianism is famous for its democratic appeal, and the way it unify all mankind to act in ways which benefit the maximum number of people. However, when it comes to eating and eating animals out of hunger or simple pleasure and capability, the utilitarian view becomes distorted. Eating animals, as per utilitarianism, do not constitute the most good for the most people, because animals are killed for satiating the desires of the stomach. This could be seen differently when the conditions of eating animals are rare, such as dire lack of vegetarian options and severe living conditions. The same act of killing animals for food is unjustified in conditions where there is plenty of food available for which no animals or fewer animals are required to be killed. Eating animals and assuming ethical behaviour are prominent in those who think themselves as rational and inexpressive animals as irrational. The very fact that humans have the superior capability of overpowering animals places them at a natural advantage to kill and eat them. The same act when taken in case of powerful humans killing weaker humans and eating them is uprightly irrational because weaker humans who are killed are expressive and are able to convey upfront rejection. When weaker humans anticipate their killing by stronger people, they immediately bring the upholding of human rights and fundamental right to live and not be killed or attacked as a saviour. This nullifies their argument that animals are irrational and because they are weaker they could be killed and eaten. Animal eaters forget to realise that animals are simply inexpressive, reproduce as humans, and have the same right to live as humans.
Suffering of animals and ethics
Treating animals with disdain and utter disregard of their fundamental right to live are the epitome of the irrationality of humans, because when an animal is killed against its wish, it is clearly a sign of the use of force against a weaker animal. This is evident in the resistance provided by animals while being attacked for killing, and this makes itself a serious case of unethical behaviour against humans. Treating other humans with the same disregard would not be ethical, because it is to have killed a rational animal. Fox & Ward (2008) in their research found that participants were willing to restrict their diet to vegetables. They also were willing to restrict their indulgence in animal eating because of the environmental damage that comes with it, and the increased demand of animal treatment by veterinarians. This indicates that humans when made realised about the suffering of animals are emotional enough to avoiding killing them to eat them. Thus, suffering when contemplated and internalised makes one realise the pain of other animals. However, it is clear and rational enough that realising the pain and suffering of inexpressive animals does not require a deep contemplative discussion. It is evident by their actions and resistance to the force of killing. Hence, it is just a question of will that the humans must internalise to contemplate restricting their eating habits to vegetable, because animals are similar in nature, although different in species.