An interesting theory, I have been reading about is that contrary to Jeremy Bentham's (who basically said so long as animals are treated "humanely" it is morally acceptable to use them as property because they have no interest in their own lives/a future existence) theory of humane treatment of animals is that animals have an interest in their own life. The basic premise of the theory is equal consideration which says similar interest should be treated similarly and just as race or sex is not a morally justifiable basis for disparate treatment, species is also not a justifiable basis for disparate treatment. So long as an animal can suffer (so long as it is sentient) it deserves to not have suffering inflicted on it.
Similarly, this theory would say that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on an animal and since eating animal products are unnecessary to our survival it is morally wrong to use animals as food.
An interest thought, is eating animal products any different than dog fighting? (follow link for an interesting article before answering)
Similarly, this theory would say that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on an animal and since eating animal products are unnecessary to our survival it is morally wrong to use animals as food.
An interest thought, is eating animal products any different than dog fighting? (follow link for an interesting article before answering)