Abstract

This article addresses the question: “What follows from the claim that we have a certain kind of strong reason against animal cruelty?” It deals with the ethics of killing animals. It finds the following common assumption highly puzzling and problematic: despite our obligations not to commit animal cruelty, there is no comparably strong reason against painlessly killing animals in the prime of life. It argues that anyone who accepts this view is committed to the moral position that either we have no reasons against such killings or we have only weak reasons.