The Dilemma of Painless Killing

For most people, the act of killing is wrong because it inflicts pain on the animal or person being killed. However, when the idea of the painless killing of an animal or a person is introduced, people are split between the two.

In the last couple of years, there has been a fight against animal cruelty and animal testing. When scientists experiment on animals, people see this as unethical as many complications can occur from the products’ reaction to the animal. The main argument is that animal testing can cause harm to animals. The substances tested on animals can cause symptoms that can result in serious issues and even death. However, in the case of painless deaths, is it morally wrong to kill using this method? Using methods to kill that do not inflict pain on the animal does not inflict any type of pain or discomfort for the animal. The killing of the animal does not harm any one and actually benefits those who need the meat to eat and live.

While others may argue that it takes away from the animal’s opportunity to live, most likely nothing will be taken away from the animal. The daily lives of animals typically consist of just eating and sleeping. This is nothing interesting enough to continue living for. When animals simply eat and sleep all day, everyday, they have nothing to lose. Painless killing removes the pain that could have been administered to the animal in order to kill it, and by using this method, the animal does not suffer and the people who receive the meat benefit. From a utilitarian’s point of view, since people are being benefitted and the animal is not harmed, the killing of the animal using painless methods is morally right. It brings about the greatest amount of good and happiness.

Since the animal is killed using painless measures, it is not morally wrong to kill the animal to use it for good rather than prolonging a life with no other purpose.

8 responses to “The Dilemma of Painless Killing

Leave a Reply