IndexExpositionArgumentsObjection and responseConclusionWork citedFor several decades, philosophers, movements and individuals have debated the issue of the consumption of meat and all other animal products. The topic of the ethics of meat consumption is particularly interesting since the question is still whether there is a moral justification for meat consumption. For example, existing animal rights movements have their claims against meat eating amplified by philosopher Peter Singer in his book Animal Liberation. His book has had a direct and indirect impact on how individuals view the moral and ethical status of meat consumption. Although he uses rhetorical effectiveness, his utilitarian argument against harming animals to satisfy human needs is unconvincing. This is mainly due to the fact that animals do not have the moral status and capabilities inherent to humans. Unlike humans, animals can neither establish their own moral rules nor act accordingly based on reasoning. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Through this article, I will argue that eating meat is not immoral, using the approach of utilitarianism, which cuts both ways, and the theory of human exceptionalism also. To achieve this, I will first explain the theories of utilitarianism and human exceptionalism. I will then present my argument applying the two approaches to demonstrate how meat consumption is not immoral. The use of examples and analogies will further support my position. Finally, I will present an existing argument that counters my case and then respond to the same. Exposition Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that helps distinguish between right and wrong by focusing primarily on the consequences of an action. It takes a consequentialist approach by arguing that the most ethical course of action leads to the highest good or the greatest public good. The utilitarian answer to the question “What should a person do?” is that one should act according to what produces the best consequences. In contrast, the theory of human exceptionalism argues that humans are distinctive and unique and should be assigned moral status because of this uniqueness. According to supporters of this theory, human beings are intrinsically different and deserve to be valued in a distinct and unique way. 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 immoral to eat meat. Animals have no moral standing. Since they consider only their own interests and not that of the greater good, they have no inherent right to morality under utilitarianism. Accordingly, it is justifiable that the intentional death of an animal serves the greater good by providing culinary pleasure to human consumers and satisfying their basic need for food to survive. An animal's suffering in death is inferior to the results humans enjoy when they eat meat. One philosopher, Joel MacClellan, has argued that the utilitarian assessment of the ethical permissibility of consuming animal products varies significantly depending on the function of the animal's size. He provided an analogy that discredits Singer's utilitarianism. The philosopher explained that the suffering caused by the death of a whale should be weighed against the enormous pleasure it could provide to humans by consuming its flesh. Automatically, for many people, the pleasure that comes from eating whale meat is.., 1977.