Micheal Pollan , a writer for the New York Times magazine published an article on November 10, 2002. “An Animals place”, Concerning the moral issue whether or not its right to consume meat as humans. Pollan also introduces a Peter Singer’s argument, which is very straightforward. Based on equality, We humans are not all equal: “Some are smarter than others, better looking, and more gifted. (Pollan 2). The main idea is to comprehend that “Everyone’s interests should receive equal consideration regardless of what abilities they may posses. (Pollan 2). This is where a question arises and a parallel problem swings along. If one individual has more intelligence and uses another individual for his own purpose, how can we not use animals for the same exact purpose? Not Only did a Pollan’s thesis acknowledge the problem of animal cruelty, but it also proposes a solution that fortified his article. The argument which Pollan bought to our attention were how to treat animals.
Various animal rights activists claim that eating animals increases and plays a dominant role in animal cruelty. Pollan refutes this claim stating that humans can eat animals as long as we honor them while they’re alive. Pollan uses narratives, compare and contrast as well as cited, all experts work that he researched to add credibility to his article. “There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on this earth. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion” (Pollan). Consuming meat has been a main source of food for humans since the beginning of time, and it's part of our nature. Animal consump...
... middle of paper ...
...s suffering from, the problems humans face should become a priority. Animal right activists are not presenting a solid reason that which will force Pollan to stop eating meat and wearing animal skin.
Another argument that Pollan tackles is animal suffering stating “ it can be argued that human pain differs from animal pain by an order of magnitude.” Pollan justifies humans suffer more than animals due to their possession of language and by, virtue of language, an ability to have thoughts about thoughts and to imagine alternatives to our current situation. Humans pain is intensified by human emotions like loss, sadness, worry, regret,self-pity, shame, humiliation and dread. Pollan is responding to animal activists who are trying to assign animals moral values. Animals clearly do not suffer as much as humans do, so comparing an animal to a child is absurd.
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
In Michael’s Pollan article, the author seeks to inform whether or not it 's correct to consume animals and the treatments they receive. Many animal right activist believe
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
We care so much about what the food is and how it is made that we overlook about where the food had come from. According to the reading selection, “Killing Them with Kindness?” by James McWilliams, an American history professor at Texas State University, states “animals raised in factory farms have qualities that make them worthy of our moral consideration…[and yet, we] continue to ignore the ethical considerations involved in eating meat” (311). This exhibits that when Americans are so engrossed in healthy eating, our morals about animal rights are neglected. Most of what we eat are animals, and animals like we do have emotions, interests, and possibly goals in life. We pay no heed of the animal’s interests and it should not be that way since our interests are no more important just because we are more superior, intelligent beings should not give us the right to perceive animals in such a manner. In addition to paying notice of the origin of where the animals come from, we need to be aware of what killing animals will do to the earth. In the TedTalk, “What’s Wrong with the Way We Eat,” Mark Bittman states “10 billion animals are killed each year for food and they represent 18% of the harmful greenhouse gasses” (Bittman). This reveals that our careless consumption would not only lead to the suffering of animal deaths but the suffering of our world and our imminent death. As we increase our progression with our unhealthy obsession over healthy eating, there will not be any positive effects for the body, the animals around us, or the world. If we were to be conscious about the source of our food and the consequence of eating then we will be able to eat healthily and
If a being can suffer, as both humans and animals can, therefore they have interests. That maybe, but animals have only basic interests such as food, water, territory and mating. Humans, along with the basic animal interests, have more complex interests such as careers, increasing wealth, acquiring material objects, and increase their knowledge. Humans have more interests than animals, therefore they should have more rights. But animals should not have rights, but instead be treated well of morality. We have the reason, logic, and action to do what we please to animals. But our morality is what tells us to not harm animals for personal pleasure. If we must harm an animal, then it’s for a greater good, such as experimenting research to find cures. Not only do animals not have rights, they cannot practice the rights that humans have. In a democracy, the humans have a right to vote. Animals cannot vote because they do not care about politics what so ever. Animals also cannot vote because they are not intelligent enough to vote for a candidate. Therefore, Cohen’s objections are successful to Singer’s
“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.
There is a lot of heavy emphasis on evolution, and its role in gaining perspective in the rights of animals. In fact, one of Pollan’s most potent arguments for disagreeing with Singer is his view of domestication: “Rather, domestication happened when a small handful of especially opportunistic species discovered through Darwinian trial and error that they were more likely to survive and prosper in an alliance with humans than on their own” (64). Pollan does not care for the belief that humans—the evolved playground bullies—have constantly used their dominant status to forcibly subjugate “inferior” creatures. He describes the relationship between humans and animals as mutualism, an evolutionary concept in which two species maintain a parasitic relationship in which neither species is at a disadvantage. Yes, the pigs do end up in my morning bacon and the cows in my JJ’s hamburger. However, animals didn’t receive an unjust bargain. Remember Homer, the feral housecat. Some may argue that Homer’s actions are disgusting; he is a housecat and therefore does not have the same need as a feral cat to hunt for his next meal. However, others argue that Homer’s actions are the result of his genetic predisposition for hunting and survival; furthermore, my uncle and Homer have renegotiated the evolutionary deal Homer’s kin have had for thousands of years. Homer is given shelter and a steady food supply, and he keeps away the rats, mice, and disease-ridden birds (although I wouldn’t mind if he would leave the small bunnies off the kill list). This is Pollan’s concept of “utilitarianism.” The utilitarian perspective, from which Pollan argues, indicates that an animal’s desire to hunt, and our not dissimilar desire to eat, is neither evil nor justified. It is just an instinctive, and arguably cold, method of using our given
Men have thought themselves to be the superior species for a long time, but Peter Singer brings a new perspective on the topic in his essay entitled Speciesism and Moral Status. Singer’s new way of thinking of it states that determining morals status requires the comparison between the cognitive abilities of humans and nonhumans. The main points he focusses on in his essay are cognitive capacities between animals and humans with severe mental retardation, religion affecting human’s beliefs of superiority, and finally the ability to suffer and how similar humans and nonhumans are.
Jonathan Safran Foer wrote “Eating Animals” for his son; although, when he started writing it was not meant to be a book (Foer). More specifically to decide whether he would raise his son as a vegetarian or meat eater and to decide what stories to tell his son (Foer). The book was meant to answer his question of what meat is and how we get it s well as many other questions. Since the book is a quest for knowledge about the meat we eat, the audience for this book is anyone that consumes food. This is book is filled with research that allows the audience to question if we wish to continue to eat meat or not and provide answers as to why. Throughout the book Foer uses healthy doses of logos and pathos to effectively cause his readers to question if they will eat meat at their next meal and meals that follow. Foer ends his book with a call to action that states “Consistency is not required, but engagement with the problem is.” when dealing with the problem of factory farming (Foer).
...nger states “Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests”. Singer argues that, as there is no justification for unequal treatment of human beings based on capacity, it is also unjustifiable to treat human and non-human animals differently based on their capacities.
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
...e Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21.6 (2008): 580-96. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
Singer makes a three-part argument for why “All Animals Are Equal”, or at the very least should be granted equal consideration. Firstly, he argues that, assuming all humans are awarded equal rights, there is no single characteristic apart from being human that grants them such rights. Secondly, he argues that awarding rights by virtue of humanity is arbitrary and speciesist. Lastly, he argues that sentience is the only characteristic that should be considered in terms of granting animal rights. This leads him to the conclusion that “if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration… The principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being”.
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A
According to the philosopher Peter Singer, speciesists treat human interests as more fundamental than other nonhuman animals interests; therefore, speciesists ignore the interests of other species where no great benefit to human interests is concerned (Singer 279). For instance, the BUAV claims that experiments like sewing kittens’ eyelids together to study amblyopia have been done many years ago, and yet no cure has been found (Hanlon 1). As a result, Singer argues nonhuman animals are regarded as only “an item of laboratory equipment” (281). Many of the experiments on animals are carried out for rather trivial interests such that speciesists give the weight of nonhuman animals less weight than the interests of human beings. Singer asserts that human beings need to apply the principle of equal consideration of interests to animals to give equal weight on them (Singer 277). Singer’s theory of equal consideration of interests is extremely useful because it sheds insight on vivisection since the fundamental issue in how human may treat animals is whether they suffer and such that pains of animals and humans deserve equal considerations (Singer 278). Whether it’s poultry farming or vivisection, sentient animals have interests of not experiencing pain or suffering (Singer 278). According to Hanlon, animal recruits lead better lives and better deaths in laboratory than in poultry