Animal Bush Meat and Ethics Essay Example

Who is superior in the food chain between human beings and wild animals? Eating bushmeat attract a considerable controversy as the practice is used to test the boundary; between the human morals and culture of eating meat, economic needs and recreation needs. The difference in both schools of thoughts spawns a passion and conflict hence creating dilemma on whether to feed on bush meat or protect our wild animals. There always a discussion on whether there would ever exist a peaceful and better sense community between animals and human beings. Vegetarians and protectionists who are of the opinion eating animals are unethical and cruel to the animal as it would lead to nature imbalance as well as the extinction of some animals. What would happen if we fed on all the animals in the name of bushmeat? Some African communities hunt and eat bush meat as a way of leaving and hunt these animals as a way of life, culture and recreational activity. Would imagine having a meal without even a slice of meat? There is a heating debate on whether people should abandon their religion of eating bush meat to improve their ethics.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

One school of thought are of the opinion that human should not kill animals to get bushmeat. It's an argument maintained by the animal right movement and vegetarians who major concern is protecting animals from harm caused by human beings. According to philosopher Peter Singer in his book All animals are equal, he explains that suffering and pain regardless to what or whom it is caused to should not be given a deaf ear as they form the basis of our morals and ethics. The proof of justifying such act should be borne by the person who does it. Also Tom Regan in his article Animal rights, human wrongs. He contributes to this controversial debate by stating that "hunting and killing animals violates animals inherent value by treating them as a resource than living being". Animal activists argue that the pleasure of feeding on animal bushmeat cannot be compared nor justified by taking the animal life or torturing it to death. Also, scientist such as Rolston is of the similar opinion as they argue that there is a moral and ecological problem linked with feeding on bushmeat. In his books, he explains that hunting and use of bushmeat harm the species population and distorting the biotic community as well as the ecosystem (Rolston 34). The killing of animals such as dears and gazelle causes an imbalance in the ecosystem as the predators such as Lion have less to feed on and some cases my die hence disturbing a perfect healthy ecosystem. Not using bush meat balances ecosystem as well prevent some animals from being extinct.

Contrary to the above debate, there is a school of thought that is of the opinion that bushmeat is part of our cultures and should not be abolished. According to BBC, African communities primarily in the west, east and south of Africa practice acting as a source of livelihood as well as well as the dominant social event for recreation purposes. Stopping such an activity would cripple the economy as well as norms and ethics of the community. Feeding on bushmeat is a method of controlling the over pollution. Historically speaking, predators have reduced for the last decade, and herbivores such as deer and gazelle have increased. To balance the increase so as they do not damage the biotic community hunting and to feed on them would be a bright idea. Carol Adams support the notion of bushmeat in her book The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory by emphasising that human beings are created and objectified to see wild animals as prey. She also argues that we meant to feed on the environment as the top of the food chain and to eat the game meat is just doing our role in natural existence. Those who feed on bush meat have accurate insight into the natural world. The hunting process and killing of animals is part of our role in nature and its embedded in our genes. To lead as natural life means using what nature provides which in this case means bush meat (Cawthorn 45). This school of thought argues that feeding on bushmeat is part and parcel of human beings and it natural and ethical to so.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there two schools of thoughts have enough justification to believe in what they see best and implement it to the betterment of the environment. What is ethical is what makes our environment be better and ensure that animals are not extinct. The first opinion emphasis that feeding on bushmeat is non-ethical as it alters the natural balance as well as makes some animals extinct. It has been opposed by the second school of thought that argues bushmeat is a way of balancing the environment. They further state that feeding on the animals is natural and it's our genes and that how we were created. In my opinion, I believe both ideas are right. However, their extremes would lead to damages to the environment.

Works Cited

Singer, Peter. "All animals are equal." Animal Rights. Routledge, 2017. 3-16.

Rolston, Holmes. Environmental ethics. Temple University Press, 2012.

Regan, Tom. "Animal rights, human wrongs." Environmental Ethics 2.2 (1980): 99-120.

Adams, Carol J. The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2015.

Inside Africa's biggest bushmeat market in Angola. 07 June 2016. https://www.bbc.com/news07 November 2018

Cawthorn, D. and Hoffman, L. The bushmeat and food security nexus: A global account of the contributions, conundrums and ethical collisions. (2018).