Response to Krystine Munoz’s View on Ethics

Response to Krystine Munoz’s View on Ethics

KRYSTINE MUNOZ

Peter Singer believes that animals deserve the same respect as human beings do. He believes that it is immoral to use animals in any way that may promote cruelty or pain. His views on Ethics stems from a utilitarian point of view—maximize happiness while diminishing pain.

Ethics has taught me that as individuals we must respect others decisions, despite not agreeing with them— however, one must never forget their morals and values, and fight for what is deemed right. Morality is a public phenomenon and it is ever changing. We must always remember that people are in entirely different situations than ourselves, thus the actions they take may be completely different than the ones we do because of where they currently are in life. There are different morals for everyone and those different morals produce different rules and results.

Ethics has taught me that there are inconsistent statuses amongst animal ethics. Many, like Singer, believe animals should not be harmed or tortured in anyway, whereas others see themselves as superior because animals are unable to understand what morality truly means. When I think of animals and ethics, it has opened my eyes to how many animals are killed inhumanely so people can eat meat. At my household, we eat meat however we have gradually begun to substitute it for vegan products, because we feel guilty for eating the meat of an animal that was tortured and killed inhumanely.

Just like the stance of animal ethics, there is an inconsistent status among environmental ethics. People are quick to knock down forests and tear down farm land to build sky rises despite the fact that they are contributing to global warming, destroying ecosystems, and so forth. It’s unfortunate that many don’t see that these environmental changes will be detrimental for our future here on Earth.