Our Duties to Animals and the Poor Essay -- Argumentative, McGinn

In this essay, I pull up stakes discuss if our actions towards animals are im virtuous. McGinn discusses his reasons shortly, presumptuous that he is correct. He claims that, we have a moral profession to arrogate the low-down, and cease the killing, of the animals with which we have dealings (McGinn 150). This is the structure of his argument(1) It is morally revile to cause the suffering and death of animals unnecessarily (2) We do cause the suffering of and death of animals unnecessarily.Therefore(3) What we do to animals is morally wrong.As my thesis, I will reject his claim, and his arguments that support such(prenominal) claim I shall call his allegation Claim X. Though objecting to this claim seems intuitively horrendous, I notion that his argument does not demonstrate the correct grounds for readers to be subject to empathize with his views. In this paper, I will critically object to McGinns fundamental argument, by illustrating the flaws of his supporting claims. Aft er his supporting claims are seen as fallacious, I shall demystify such key argument. Finally, to finish on a good note, I will propose an alternative view on the matter. To start, I want to first define the terms, as he has on his article. By the term suffering, McGinn defines them as the following Eating meat, hunting, vivisection, and pelt coats, and the like (McGinns 151). For the like, I propose he meant, other activities such as owning animals, using them for entertainment, or work. To support his argument, he poses the following tether points. First, he asserts that our uses of animals do not justify our means. Second, he believes that it is our moral duty to not cause any unnecessary suffering on animals. threesome and last, he claims that it is erroneous to think of a... ... destroy the environment by destroying the animals. If it is our moral duty to preserve the environment, then it is our moral duty to preserve the species that suffice with it. Therefore, it is mora lly incorrect to allow those species to be used as turnout material.Wrapping up, McGinns Claim X fails, it is not our duty to apologise the suffering and stop the killing of animals, which we have dealings with. Claim X fails because, McGinns supporting points do not have enough force to support the three-premise argument. Since the argument for Claim X is not sustained, we are nonimmune to believe that our duty towards animals end when we restrain from abusive, violent, or destructive demeanour but not when animals provide us with benefits that are intrinsic to them. In conclusion, our current interactions with animals do not portray an immoral behavior.