The Call to Change for Animals
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
Gary Steiner is an American moral philosopher,
…show more content…
He shuts down every differing opinion in a way that is not only understandable, but also convincing. The way he degrades the human being from their intelligent and compassionate view of themselves, makes it very hard to not feel regretful and anguished. The example of Steiner’s cat not being able to appreciate Schubert’s late symphonies, yet that doesn’t automatically seclude him into becoming a toy, really makes you think about your own heart for your animals and see what is wrong with the logic behind treating animals as less than. (Steiner 772) To befuddle this though, I was not completely moved to become a hardcore vegan, however it did call me to be more conscious of what I am buying as a consumer. I honestly think Gary Steiner hit the nail on the head with the line, “These uses of animals are so institutionalized, so normalized, in our society that it is difficult to find the critical distance needed to see them as the horrors that they are…” (Steiner 772). It is hard to think that all of humanity would change the way it has been since time began. In conclusion, I concur with the call to action Steiner proposes, and can say it did provide persuasion and self-analyzation to an
Culture is expressed through a variety of different ways, from clothing styles to lifestyles to faithful traditions. It can also have a deep impact on the viewpoints of those around you, whether negatively or positively. No matter how a person goes about their everyday life, they can rise above the expectations of their culture to change the world around them. Culture does not have to be the basis of every thought, word, or deed of a person.
In the next two paragraphs, Steiner declares himself as an ethical vegan and states that most of the people doesn’t reflect about these questions like for example the case of Thanksgiving week, where all kinds of food, and especially turkey is abundant, and how individual’s health would be affected if they decide not to consume any kind of animal products on their regular diet. Even though there are many counterarguments to Steiner’s response, there is still plentiful support on the use of animals for people’s benefit.
He put into my perspective some of the truths of ethically treated animals and how most people believe it is for our own good to use animals to our advantage. I never really pondered the fact that animals, whether they are treated ethically or not, end up getting slaughtered. I truly believe that Steiner provides a strong argument, but I am not in complete agreeance. Ethical treatment of animals is something that I think should always be reinforced, but Steiner takes being vegan to the extreme by saying, “you just haven’t really lived until you’ve tried to function as a strict vegan in a meat-crazed society,” (197) and comparing the slaughter of animals to an internment camp that was part of a mass genocide. Comparing the slaughtering of animals to a mass genocide is more ridiculous than the number of animals killed in a year for human consumption. I do not think he can say that no one has “lived” until they have lived as a vegan. There is much more to life than worrying about whether or not the food or the products you use is made from
As I have progressed through this class, my already strong interest in animal ethics has grown substantially. The animal narratives that we have read for this course and their discussion have prompted me to think more deeply about mankind’s treatment of our fellow animals, including how my actions impact Earth’s countless other creatures. It is all too easy to separate one’s ethical perspective and personal philosophy from one’s actions, and so after coming to the conclusion that meat was not something that was worth killing for to me, I became a vegetarian. The trigger for this change (one that I had attempted before, I might add) was in the many stories of animal narratives and their inseparable discussion of the morality in how we treat animals. I will discuss the messages and lessons that the readings have presented on animal ethics, particularly in The Island of Doctor Moreau, The Dead Body and the Living Brain, Rachel in Love, My Friend the Pig, and It Was a Different Day When They Killed the Pig. These stories are particularly relevant to the topic of animal ethics and what constitutes moral treatment of animals, each carrying important lessons on different facets the vast subject of animal ethics.
In Alastair Norcross’ paper, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” he describes a situation in which a man, Fred, has lost his ability to enjoy the gustatory pleasure of chocolate due to a car accident. However, it is known that puppies under duress produce cocoamone, the hormone Fred needs in order to enjoy chocolate again. Since no one is in the cocoamone business, Fred sets up twenty six puppy cages, and mutilates them resulting in cocoamone production in the puppy’s brains. Each week he slaughters a dog and consumes the cocoamone. When he is caught, he explains to the judge and jury that his actions are no different from factory farming because he is torturing and killing puppies for gustatory pleasure similar to how factory farms torture and kill cows, chickens, etc. for other people’s gustatory pleasure. You, the reader are meant to think that this is unacceptable, and therefore, denounce factory farming. Although there are many valid objections to this argument, I am in agreement with Norcross and shall be supporting him in this paper. I think the two most practical objections are that (1) most consumers don’t know how the animals are treated whereas Fred clearly does, and (2) if Fred stops enjoying chocolate, no puppies will be tortured, but if a person becomes a vegetarian, no animals will be saved due to the small impact of one consumer. I shall explain the reasoning behind these objections and then present sound responses in line with Norcross’ thinking, thereby refuting the objections.
Although George Orwell’s Animal Farm was created in order to mimic individuals as well as occurrences that took place during the Russian Revolution period, it is still possible to gain a comprehensive understanding of the text without a past knowledge of history through the exploitation of human nature’s imperfections. Following the publishment of his novel, Orwell confirmed that his goal in writing this fable was to expose the wrongdoing of the Soviet Union as well as the treachery of the true ideas of the Revolution. Nonetheless, there have been several other examples of events such as the French Revolution that can effortlessly be contrasted against components of the allegory. However, we need not to dig no deeper than to the fundamental faults in human nature to witness the catastrophic consequences that attributes such as hierarchy, propaganda and betrayal have on today’s society.
After reading the Ethics of What We Eat, one may conclude that there are two normative principles that can be applied when ruling the ethics behind our food (Utilitarianism and Kantianism). Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to reverse it. On the contrary, Kantianism does not concern itself with the consequences in considering what’s right or wrong. Instead, what’s right is not the maximization of happiness, but the morality of the actions that lead to such happiness. Because of these opposite ideologies, using animals for food, its environmental impact, and its impact on global poverty can be controversial.
Steiner is very passionate about the rights of animals, and makes it clear all throughout the article with active illustrations and tone of voice. His tone expresses a clear understanding and devotion to animal rights, which expresess his emotion clearly with the audience. He also uses examples such as his cat, which shows emotion because it’s his pet that he sees as a friend instead of a source of entertainment for when he is bored(Par.20). Examples like this are used well to demonstrate his emotions in a way that makes sense and backs up his
Alastair Norcross introduces a very controversial case. He compares the actions of Fred as being morally equal to factory farming. Norcross presents the Marginal case and the Analogy argument. There are many objections to his beliefs such as; the suffering of the puppies is intended as a means to Fred’s pleasure, whereas the suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side effect of a system that is a means to the gustatory pleasure of millions. Also, the individual consumers lack the power to put an end to factory farming. And lastly, human beings have a greater moral status than nonhumans. (Norcross, 285) I disagree with Norcross’s statement saying that Fred’s behavior and that of people who consume factory-farmed meat is morally equivalent.
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Call Number: HV4711.A5751992. Morris, Richard Knowles, and Michael W. Fox, eds. On the Fifth Day, Animal Rights. and Human Ethics.
Animal Farm, a novel by George Orwell, was a story of courage and corrupt government. It was set on a farm in England. This setting is very important to the story itself and the characters in it. It made the plot a lot more interesting and influenced all the characters.
Animals are used for people 's entertainment or own benefits, but the question is what benefits do they get? Do they even get any? This paper tells about the things animals go through to help or just entertain us in life. For example the tiny cramped places animals are forced into. If the animals don 't perform well in zoos or circuses a lot of times they simple won 't feed them. The owners beating them for nothing. Lastly experiments on them and they can not even defend themselves. Animals should not be used for human benefit. Using animals for any kind of entertainment or experiment can be considered against the law especially if they are put in poor conditions and harmed. Animals have rights that should be taken seriously. Animals also have
Writers often use social criticism in their books to show corruptness or weak points of a group in society. One way of doing this is allegory which is a story in which figures and actions are symbols of general truths. George Orwell is an example of an author who uses allegory to show a social criticism effectively. As in his novel Animal Farm, Orwell makes a parody of Soviet Communism as demonstrated by Animal Farm's brutal totalitarian rule, manipulated and exploited working class, and the pigs' evolution into the capitalists they initially opposed.