Gary Steiner, a philosophy professor at Bucknell University states in his article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” that through history, humans have considered morally superior than animals in many ways. Steiner exposed that humans never had an appropriate level of fairness, and instead, the have treat them with no compassion, making their life miserable until they are ready to serve people as: food, clothing, entertainment, and medicine. The author, as a current vegan, presented his experience in avoiding many kind of animal products, and believe that humans are able to survive, without the use of animals. Steiner expressed that animals have been exploded for the benefit of society and that people have evaded the principles of ethics against …show more content…
Did they have a good quality of life before the death that turned them into someone’s dinner?” (Steiner 845). With these questions the author tries to hook up his audience and make them think about how and where does everyday meat comes from.
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.
Paragraph four cites the Bibles and how it supports the author’s main claim on the use of animals for the sake of humans. It states that humans are supposed to be closer to the divine than animals due that humans were made in God’s image. Steiner also refers to the anthropocentrically thoughts of two Christian thinkers that agreed that animals have been devaluated through
…show more content…
In which he describes the encounter between a man and a mouse, consequently, the writer determinates that there is certain connection between them, and that the mouse has also capacity to have thoughts, feel love and compassion. The connection between them is compared “a child of God” and the “holy creature” (Steiner 846). The writer concludes that as conscious beings, both individuals have the same level of dignity, therefore, the use of animals as food is considered an “unforgiveable”
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.
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
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
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.
Veganism revolves around one's character and ethics, which Steiner does a very good job of discussing and using it to back up his argument. In his article, he talks frequently about the ethics and morality regarding animals and how many lack those traits. For a portion of the article he uses the bible as an example of morals and ethics to connect with the audience: after that he uses illustrations from everyday life. One prominent example is when he talks about the fact that nearly fifty-three billion land animals are killed for human consumption and that people are still willing to eat meat after learning that fact(Par.10). These examples are used to effectively connect with the audience and address his argument.
“An Animals’ Place” by Michael Pollan is an article that describes our relationship and interactions with animals. The article suggests that the world should switch to a vegetarian diet, due to the mistreatment of animals. The essay includes references from animal rights activists and philosophers. These references are usually logical statement that compare humans and non-human animals in multiple levels, such as intellectual and social.
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.
Walters, Kerry S, and Lisa Portmess. Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Print.
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism according to Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it.
In this paper I will look at the argument made by James Rachels in his paper, The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism supporting the view that humans should be vegetarians on moral grounds. I will first outline the basis of Rachels’ argument supporting vegetarianism and his moral objection to using animals as a food source and critique whether it is a good argument. Secondly, I will look at some critiques of this kind of moral argument presented by R. G. Frey in his article, Moral Vegetarianism and the Argument from Pain and Suffering. Finally, I will show why I support the argument made by Frey and why I feel it is the stronger of the two arguments and why I support it.
Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the treatment of animals, the environmental argument, animal rights, pain, morals, religion, and the law.
Over the years, veganism has become something that more and more people practice. Not only because of friends and family, but because how much it is brought up and seen in everyday life. Gary Steiner, author of “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” writes about how it is morally wrong to kill animals because they are inferior to humans. Steiner also explicitly states how he is an ethical vegan and highly dislikes meat eating. Although in “The Ethical Choices in What We Eat: Responses to Gary Steiner,” the writers make good points that agree with him, but are also against Steiner. In these letters, both sides make strong points about their agreement or argument. Steiner’s article functions in a
Before this week’s lesson, I had never given any consideration to whether or not nonhuman animals had any moral standing. Prior to this class, if asked whether I thought they did or not, I most likely would have said that I do not feel they do; however, after serious consideration, I would now have to say that I do think that nonhuman animals have moral standing. At least some of them do.
Let me begin with the words by George Bernard Shaw: ‘Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends’. This indicates the ethic aspect of meat consumption. In fact, people often don’t realize how animals are treated, but they can see commercial spots in their TV showing smiling pigs, cows or chickens, happy and ready to be eaten. My impression is that there can’t be anything more cruel and senseless. It is no secret that animals suffer ...
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we