Question

Animals should not be used for the benefit of human beings unless there is evidence that the animals do not suffer in any way. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Model Answer

In many Western countries, people are adopting a plant-based diet due to concerns around animal welfare. Is it realistic though to think we may soon live in a world without animal exploitation? I personally believe that it is a desirable but unrealistic goal for most societies.

Some cases of animal cruelty are clearly unnecessary and cannot be justified. I would include activities such as cock-fighting, circus shows, and extreme food production methods in this category. These provide very few benefits to people which cannot be replicated through other less cruel means. For example, the production of foie gras involves a great deal of animal suffering, and yet the result is not all that different from a regular pâté. I have no problems with banning these types of activities.

However, some degree of animal suffering is unavoidable due to the way human society is organised. For example, many societies are reliant upon animal labour for agriculture. It is unrealistic to expect developing countries in particular to be able to quickly transition away from this form of animal exploitation. Throughout human history, people have had close ties with the animal kingdom, and this is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

In short, when discussing this topic, I think it is necessary to make a distinction between egregious forms of animal suffering and those which provide tangible benefits. Wishing to end animal suffering is a laudable aim, but it does not take into account many societies continued reliance upon animal labour.

(252 words)