Watch the following video on the ethics of killing animals for food, by the philosopher Tyler Doggett: https://www.youtube.comMatch? v=3HAMk_ZY079 In the video, Doggett argues that it is morally wrong to kill animals for food. He begins by pointing out that it is clearly morally wrong to kill people for food. Then he asks — if it's morally wrong to kill animals for food, what's the difference between people and animals in virtue of which it is morally wrong to kill people for food, but not morally wrong to kill animals for food? He then considers a few possibilities: (i) there are genetic differences between people and animals; (ii) people are more intelligent than animals; and (iii) there are special emotional bonds that we have with people and that we do not have with animals. Doggett concedes that these are important distinctions between people and animals. But he does not think they are enough. He does not think that any of these differences can explain why it's morally wrong to kill people for food, but morally okay to kill animals for food. Then he considers a couple of other arguments: (iv) it is okay for us to kill animals for food because we are at the top of the food chain; and (v) it is okay to kill animals for food because they would kill us if they had the opportunity. He then explains why (he believes) neither of these arguments is successful. After you've watched the video and considered the arguments, please complete a % to 1 page write up in which you give the best argument you can for why it is morally permissible to kill animals for food. I realize that not all of you believe this. It's likely that at least some of you think that it's morally wrong to kill animals for food. That's of course okay -you may be right! But it's important to be able to argue for a position you don't believe in - if only to understand the strengths of the opposing side. So, whatever you actually believe, give it your best shot.
Sample Solution