What is the constitution about people and animals regarding the moral obligation to be a vegetarian? Many individuals state people have more rights than animals, which conflicts the favouritism of species according to cultural relativism. As if dictating the rights of life by personal choice is right and morally acceptable in itself. Furthermore, how can rights be selective according to the “governed” without the conceived notion that humans are predisposition as “tamed” animals? As language and consciousness is vital and essential to develop the rights derived from an eternal law. The eternal law is described as the divine gift from God and yet it can appear as a curse. A curse that provides the exclusion of animals to have rights due to a language and consciousness barrier often misconstrued. The reality lies and settles in the origins of language and consciousness from history within both species. Needlessly, the pleasure of inflicting pain upon animals contains a similarity and a deeper inquisition on the matter. Pleasure is discussed and defined as a movement by which the soul is brought into a normal state of being. Also the thought of pleasure nourishes the essence of pain inflicted from pleasure. Arbitrarily, how can people and animals compose polar opposites and similarities?
A typical case is when a person like Fred is inflicting pain onto puppies for pleasure. Fred is seeking pleasure for the necessary satisfaction of cocoamane. As a result, the motive is caused the individual pain of the soul. Such act of torturing puppies is displayed as not morally acceptable because the rights as humans given to puppies. Notice the perceptions and views is only ideally based on the cultural aspect of society. A western culture may view torturing puppies as socially unacceptable yet the eastern culture can dismiss the thought alone because of everyday practice. Therefore, as people, cross the line when giving rights to certain animals because of the capability to teach and train them to be household pets? Also criticize the eastern culture for conducting acts that unfeasible? It appears the root problem of understanding initiated with the language and consciousness barrier constructed within each culture. The language and consciousness pillars the foundation of the sense of moral code within a particular “governed” system. Another note is the well-received protest against the cruelty of farm animals, also, for pleasures. Even though the cruelty is unacceptable, which is until a threshold is met, the pleasure remains the satisfactory of the greater good. Since the beneficial purpose is to serve and have population control, why is it deemed as unacceptable? In other views, satisfying the pleasure alone has given people the capacity to question the rights of animals. The honesty of the thought is discussed of whether forms of life deserve a right. The following inquiry is what is considered the guidelines of moral agent and how a moral agent is individually constructed? Is a moral agent designed unconsciously or governed?
A reaction to the nature of being a moral agent is the claim of having thought process alone as people. People established the initial thought of what is considered to be a moral agent. Displacing the rights onto animals is unfair because of the advancement of humankind. It is confusing in the mind regarding the obligation entail by rights and vice versa as sense of something owed. To state the least, what determines the rights of an animal when they have no comprehension of obligation? Animals lack the distinction between good and evil, as someone might mention the common statement: “Animals would eat people too, if granted the opportunity.” Animals are moral patients and people are moral agents that can only do what is wrong. Moral patients lack the ability to formulate, and bear principles of acts of would be right or proper to perform. (188). The simple perspective is that animals lack the cognitive capacity to function on level of humankind.
However to reiterate, how did the term “people” become a universal code to establish the right and wrong of society? False absurdities reside within whether people have rights, which are entailed by moral obligation. To conclude on the basis of the provided information of rights and moral obligation is subjective. Exercising the example of cognitive capabilities is complex because of, again reinstated, the language and consciousness barrier between both species. Imagine a society, where no moral code was established to govern the behaviour of people. Would people fall in the guideline of same species as animals? In justice, language is not a universal entity, as noticed throughout different cultures and the consciousness between species. The consciousness of people and animals to be similar or different is categorized as the unknown. The opportunity has not risen to ponder the conscious of animals and gain some mutual understanding because of the predisposed self-defense. Also observations can be a dismay or proven otherwise in certain dilemmas. An excellent conclusion is the necessities to further inquire about origin of language and consciousness, in order to break barriers.
Vegetarianism is solely the epitome of moral reasoning without an evident solution. The difference between puppies and farm animals creates a contradiction on the topic of being a vegetarian, especially in separate cultures. Beside the cultures, what about the observations of different species and categories? As individuals, the tendencies to classify the rights of what is consider the ideal of life are apparent. It is not question of whether people are morally obligated to be a vegetarian, but more of the origins of the thought itself. The initial origin of the thought and conflicted argument is based on what is “governed” or unconsciously acceptable.