• PRO

    Inflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad...

    We should treat animals well

    It is important to treat animals as kindly as we can. Not causing harm to others is among the basic human rights. Although these rights cannot be said to apply directly to animals, we should extend them a certain respect as living, sentient beings, and as a minimum we should avoid causing them unnecessary harm.[1] Moreover, taking animal welfare seriously will accustom us to considering the effects of our actions in other contexts, and help us be generally sensitive to cruelty. Inflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad thing. Many governments already have many policies aimed at preventing this. For example, in 2004 the UK passed a law banning hunting with dogs on the grounds that it is cruel.[2] The Council of Europe and through it the European Union already requires stunning, with an exception for religious practices.[3] Removing this exception is the best course for animal welfare. Killing animals for food may not be philosophically wrong – after all, many species do the same. But if we are going to do so, we should cause as little harm as possible in the process, and this requires using humane slaughter methods. [1] ‘Why Animal Rights?’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2013, http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/why-animal-rights/ [2] ‘Hunting and the law’, Gov.uk, 4 April 2013, https://www.gov.uk/hunting-and-the-law [3] The Member States of the Council of Europe, ‘European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter’, Strasbourg, 10.V.1979, http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/references/slaughter/jour137_en.pdf

    • https://idebate.org/debatabase/environment-animals/house-would-ban-slaughter-animals-which-have-not-been-stunned-first