Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The consumption of meat effects on the planet
The consumption of meat effects on the planet
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The consumption of meat effects on the planet
In today’s day and age, meat is one of the most common portions of a human meal. According to the Census statistics from 2009 and 2010, United States is amongst the leading meat producing as well as meat consuming countries in the world, especially in beef and chicken.1 On the contrary, there is no census on human meat because no one consumes it. Yet, human meat and horsemeat are the same because it is meat from a body that has the capability of suffering as Singer proposed.
Therefore, in the story of Mad Max, the moral distinction than can be drawn is unjustified for numerous reasons. Peter Singer would agree with me on this matter, as he suggests in his text “The Case for Animal Liberation” that some of modern day tactics that are being used to kill animals cause tremendous amount of pain to non-human animals. These animals are being prisoned and tortured while in process of being prepared as meals for humans. Others assert there to be nothing wrong with meat consumption, mainly because they do not understand the pain the animal goes through. Yet, as stated earlier, these animals do go through cruelty and suffering.
Would any human be ready to go through the same suffering and pain? Would any human be ready to see a sledgehammer coming to thrust their throat? Would any human be ready to die knowing they will be eaten for pleasure? I can almost certainly guarantee that the answers to these questions will always be NO. In the story of Mad Max we see that Pig Killer had died willing because he was tired of his life and wanted to have some meaning. We can draw from the story that consuming of human animals is not viewed as moral because Max did not eat the human flesh but chose to eat the horsemeat. If humans are not ready to giv...
... middle of paper ...
...bout considerations. To these arguments of Singer, Cohen had nothing to say but just state that these claims are offensive. I strongly believe in the arguments stressed by Singer, and I support his thinking in that animals should get equal consideration because certain rights that matter to us do matter to them as well. In the story of Mad Max, we can conclude that the choice that Mad Max made by not eating human meat and instead choosing the Dink Dog Food was unjustified because eating horsemeat in my eyes equal to eating human meat because animals are robbed of the rights the they deserve.
Works Cited
Singer, Peter. “The Case of Animal Liberation.” In Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, 8th edition,edited by Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn (New York: Oxford
University Press 2012),
Reference:http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1377.pdf
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.
What we do to animals in factory farms is disastrous; we are torturing animals just for a quick meal. We subject animals to a life of misery just for one dinner. What Fred does to the puppies is morally wrong and no one can dispute this. People may argue that there is a moral difference between puppies and chickens, this I agree with. But, the moral difference between dogs and pigs are almost nonexistent. Both of these animals are very smart and are capable of making rational decisions. It does not make sense why some people will choose to eat a pig, but they can’t imagine eating a dog. Both species are complex. There is a moral problem in how we obtain our meat. We should try to strive in killing animals in as humane as a way as possible. I don’t think it is plausible to ask people to stop eating meat-I would not give up eating meat. But, I do agree with Norcross when he says that we need to stop factory farming. The ways animals are killed in these places in
At the end of his article, he explains, “I believe animals are less morally important than human beings; and when it comes to defending such a belief, even to myself, I have to acknowledge that (a) I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat certain kinds of animals and want to be able to keep doing it, and (b) I have not succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible instead of just selfishly convenient.” (64) Because Wallace does not state his open opinion, one may argue his article is less persuasive. Wallace's approach to persuade the readers differs from most due to his abundance of information he presents on both sides of the topic. Although Wallace states both sides of the debate, instead of solely focusing on his opinion, he gives the reader an opportunity to make an educated decision based on the facts. With this method the reader is able to not form automatic bias, and establish a stronger foundation of their
...tempt to diffuse violence. To even state that mans use of animals is immoral, and to claim that we have no right over our lives and must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of beings that cannot even think or grasp the concept of morality is ridicules. We would be elevating amoral animals to a moral level that is higher than our own, thus granting animals rights is not only fictional but wrong. In the words of Mat Block “Cows or cats would eat us to if they had a chance. Do not mistake a cats respect for one that is dominate for love, they are killers plain and simple and if you do not believe me ask their friends the birds”
The population of the earth is now 7 billion and rising. Demand for meat products is rising day by day and companies need to meet the consumer demand and to do so they forget morals about factory farming for animals. However some people over the world people are turning into vegetarians, some do it to improve their health and some do it for religion. After reading the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” by Professer Gary Steiner, I came to agree with many of his well stated arguments against meat eating like: cruelty to animals, animals being given hormones and antibiotics or animals not living a good quality life. In his essay he constantly repeats about thanksgiving and the turkey which didn’t live its life to the fullest.
The use of horses for human consumption dates back to the earliest use of animals for human consumption. Horses are used for food in many counties but are also considered inhumane in other countries. In the United States specifically, horsemeat is not the norm for consumed meat. There seems to be a problem that has arisen. It is suspected that horses being slaughtered at horse slaughtering factories are not the most up to date, pain free for the horse, and human as people suspect them to be like beef kill floors.
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”. Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”....
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
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
The purpose of the argument was from an informational appeal coming from Vergan Organization. This Organization basically uses (Ethos) Information using statistics and (logos) by the stance of the argument. Appealing to emotion causes the reader to feel sympathetic for the audience who consumes a great amount of meat. The main focus of this goal is to prevent further slaughter of animals in factory farms and educate the populous on the understand of cruelty with the visualization of images. A chief Counsel, Jonathan Lovvorn implements that “many of the nation's most routine animal farming practices would be illegal if perpetrated against cats and dogs”.“Even If You Like Meat” basically is an unanswered question arising the argument of this
Vegetarians are uncomfortable with how humans treat animals. Animals are cruelly butchered to meet the high demand and taste for meat in the market. Furthermore, meat-consumers argue that meat based foods are cheaper than plant based foods. According to Christians, man was given the power to dominate over all creatures in the world. Therefore, man has the right to use animals for food (Singer and Mason, 2007). However, it is unjustified for man to treat animals as he wishes because he has the power to rule over animals. This owes to the reality that it is unclear whether man has the right to slaughter animals (haphazardly), but it is clear that humans have a duty to take care of animals. In objection, killing animals is equal to killing fellow humans because both humans and animals have a right to life. Instead of brutally slaying animals, people should consume their products, which...
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why do so many people loathe blood, and why can so few people easily kill and slaughter animals, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche.
Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:
Washington D.C.: Acropolis Books, 1978. Call Number: HV4711O5. Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, eds. Animal Rights and Human Obligations.
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 ...