Table of contentsExhibitionArgumentsObjection and responseConclusionWork citedFor several decades, philosophers, movements and individuals have debated the question of the consumption of meat and all other products of animal origin. The topic of the ethics of meat eating is particularly interesting because it is still debated whether there is a moral argument for eating meat. For example, existing animal rights movements have their demands against meat consumption amplified by philosopher Peter Singer in his book Animal Liberation. His book has had a direct and indirect impact on how individuals perceive the moral and ethical status of meat consumption. Although he uses rhetorical effectiveness, his utilitarian argument against harming animals to meet human needs is hardly convincing. This is mainly because animals do not have the moral status and capabilities inherent to human beings. Unlike humans, animals can neither establish their own moral rules nor act on them based on reasoning. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayThrough this article, I will argue that eating meat is not unethical, using the approach utilitarian, which goes both ways, and the theory of human exception. Also. To achieve this, I will first explain the theories of utilitarianism and human exception. Next, I will present my argument applying both approaches to show that eating meat is not unethical. Using examples and analogies will further support my position. Finally, I will present an existing argument opposing my case and then respond to it.ExpositionUtilitarianism is an ethical theory that helps distinguish right from wrong by focusing primarily on the consequences of an action. It takes a consequentialist approach in believing that the most ethical course of action leads to the supreme good or greater public good. The utilitarian answer to the question “What should a person do?” is that we must act according to what produces the best consequences. Conversely, human exceptionalism theory argues that human beings are distinctive and unique and should be assigned moral status because of this uniqueness. According to proponents of this theory, human beings are inherently different and deserve to be valued in distinct and unique ways. Unlike animals, humans can develop social relationships, use language, feel pain and reason. Arguments The theory of utilitarianism supports my argument that it is not unethical to eat meat. Animals lack moral status. Since they only consider their own interests and not that of the common good, they have no inherent rights to morality within the framework of utilitarianism. Therefore, it is justifiable that the intentional killing of an animal serves the common good by providing culinary pleasure to human consumers and satisfying their basic need for food for survival. An animal's suffering from death is less than the results humans experience when eating meat. One philosopher, Joel MacClellan, has argued that the utilitarian assessment of the ethical permissibility of consuming animal products varies considerably depending on the size of the animal. He gave an analogy that discredits Singer's utilitarianism. The philosopher explained that the suffering caused by the death of a whale must.., 1977.