Final answer:
Not all deontologists agree on the treatment of food animals due to variance in the interpretation of moral rules and duties, and there is no unanimous deontological stance for their respectful treatment.
Step-by-step explanation:
Not all deontologists may agree unilaterally on the treatment of food animals since deontological ethics focus on the adherence to moral rules rather than the outcomes of actions. The application of deontological principles to the treatment of animals can vary.
Ethical systems such as deontology emphasize that actions must be judged by how well they adhere to moral rules, regardless of the consequences. Immanuel Kant, the father of deontological ethics, advocated for actions to be based on duty and universal law, without providing explicit guidance on the treatment of non-human animals. Modern deontologists may differ in their interpretations of how deontological principles apply to animal ethics. Some might argue that humans have a duty to treat animals with respect and dignity, while others may not see such duties extending to non-human entities. It is important to recognize that deontological ethics do not always directly dictate specific treatment of food animals, and there is ongoing philosophical debate over whether and how deontological principles should ensure the decent and respectful treatment of animals used for food. This complexity within deontology means consensus on the treatment of food animals is not guaranteed.
Deontological arguments in favor of humane treatment generally rest on extending moral consideration towards sentient beings or on the concept of indirect duties to animals, where the treatment of animals reflects on our own moral character. However, such interpretations are subject to individual philosopher's views, and thus, there is no unanimous agreement among deontologists on this matter.