In this essay I will discuss whether our actions towards animals are immoral. McGinn briefly discusses his reasons, assuming he is right. He states that “we have a moral duty to relieve suffering and stop killing the animals we deal with” (McGinn 150). Here is the structure of his argument: (1) It is morally wrong to cause unnecessary suffering and death to animals. (2) We cause unnecessary suffering and death to animals. Therefore: (3) What we do to animals is morally wrong. As a thesis, I will reject his claim and his arguments that support such a claim; I will call his allegation “Claim X.” Although objecting to this claim seems intuitively horrible, I believe his argument fails to demonstrate the right reasons for readers to sympathize with his views. In this article, I will critically object to McGinn's basic argument, illustrating the flaws in his supporting claims. Once his supporting claims are deemed fallacious, I will debunk this key argument. Finally, to end on a good note, I will offer an alternative vision of the subject. To begin, I want to first define the terms, as he did in his article. By the term “suffering,” McGinn defines them as follows: “Meat eating, hunting, vivisection and fur coats, etc. » (McGinns 151). For "like", I suggest he meant other activities such as owning animals, using them for entertainment or work. To support his argument, he makes the following three points. First, he asserts that our use of animals does not justify our means. Second, he believes it is our moral duty not to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. Third and finally, he argues that it is wrong to think that a... middle of paper ...... destroys the environment by destroying animals. If it is our moral duty to preserve the environment, then it is our moral duty to preserve the species that accompany it. Therefore, it is morally incorrect to allow these species to be used as production materials. In conclusion, McGinn's "claim X" fails: it is not our duty to alleviate suffering and end the slaughter of animals, with which we are dealing. “Claim Since the argument for “claim X” fails, we are likely to believe that our duty to animals ends when we refrain from abusive, violent, or destructive behavior; but not when animals provide us with benefits that are intrinsic to them. In conclusion, our current interactions with animals do not reflect immoral behavior..