Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics of eating meat essay
Ethics behind eating meat
Ethics behind eating meat
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics of eating meat essay
Why people do not eat their pets? Many people will not eat an animal, which they have either named or shared some food with. However, it makes no difference between a person who does not eat dogs and the one who does not eat chicken, cows, or even rabbits. Most people rarely encounter the animals they eat because if they did, then they will see the same characteristics found in this animals. Much of Jonathan Saffron Foer’s teenage and college years were spent oscillating between omnivore and vegetarian. As he grew old, there was an increasing moral dimension of eating animals, which were day by day becoming important to him. He became more interested in the subject and that is when he became convinced that eating animals is not ethical. The author’s arguments are organized in such a way that he first criticizes the habit of eating meat and then gives the importance of eating vegetables. When Foer goes to search the animal farms, what he finds really horrifies him. He finds out that the wild chicken normally lived for approximately 15 to 20 years, but the chicken which are in the concentrated animal feeding operation normally have nasty lives which are mired in their own lewdness. The pigs are even in a worse position because the pregnant sows are enclosed in crates where they often go insane. They chew in their own bars and end up drinking their own urine. He also found out that the cows had the best lives among the farm animals but they are highly slaughtered. He realized that a slaughterhouse worker would end up killing around two thousand and fifty animals within one shift. There even some which were skinned while still alive. He testifies on a point where a worker beat a pig until it died just because it just nu...
... middle of paper ...
...itically puts up his statements. For example he says that one of the greatest opportunities to live our values or to betray them normally lie in the foods which we put in our plates. That statement though direct is very logical. In his work, Foer is very critical in his arguments but he still has some weaknesses. For example, he does not examine the implications of a vegetarian food system. He is also dismissive of the people who are trying to create a viable alternative to the industrial farming. Foer also shows weakness where he is not just appalled by the factory farming but by the husbandry. Foer feels that the people should stop relying on animals for proteins but instead change to vegetables. These changes are possible as the cereals also contain these proteins. Vegetables are very healthy in our bodies when consumed. He has critically put up arguments.
However, billions of animals endure intense suffering every year for precisely this end.” Norcross was referring to the animals in a factory farms that produce meat to sell in supermarkets. Norcross explains the factory farms animals live cramped and stress-filled lives. The animals also undergo mutilations without any anesthesia. In the end of the factory farms’ animal life, they’re butchered for the production of meat such as chicken, veal, beef and pork to sell for a profit in places such as a grocery store or
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.
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.
Millions of animals are consumed everyday; humans are creating a mass animal holocaust, but is this animal holocaust changing the climate? In the essay “ The Carnivores Dilemma,” written by Nicolette Hahn Niman, a lawyer and livestock rancher, asserts that food production, most importantly beef production, is a global contributor to climate change. Nicolette Niman has reports by United Nations and the University of Chicago and the reports “condemn meat-eating,” and the reports also say that beef production is closely related to global warming. Niman highlights, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides are the leading greenhouses gases involved in increasing global warming. A vast majority of people across the world consumes meat and very little people are vegetarian, or the people that don’t eat meat, but are there connections between people and meat production industry when it comes to eating food and the effect it has on the climate? The greenhouse gases, methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxides are not only to blame, but we should be looking at people and industrialized farming for the leading cause of greenhouse gases in agriculture and the arm-twisting dilemma we have been lured into, which is meat production itself.
The Omnivore’s Dilemma In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan challenges his readers to examine their food and question themselves about the things they consume. Have we ever considered where our food comes from or stopped to think about the process that goes into the food that we purchase to eat every day? Do we know whether our meat and vegetables picked out were raised in our local farms or transported from another country? Michael pollen addresses the reality of what really goes beyond the food we intake and how our lives are affected.
In the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan talks about 4 different models that we consume, purchase, and add it to our daily lives. Michael Pollan travels to different locations around the United States, where he mentions his models which are fast food, industrial organic, beyond organic, and hunting. I believe that the 3 important models that we need to feed the population are fast food, industrial organic, and beyond organic. Fast food is one of the most important models in this society because people nowadays, eat fast food everyday and it is hurting us in the long run. We need to stick to beyond organic or industrial organic food because it is good for our well being. Ever since the government and corporations took over on what we eat, we have lost our culture. In the introduction of the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan states that we have lost our culture:
The food industry is in a state of necessary revolution, for obesity rates seem to be rising exponentially, counties striving to develop have hit lack-of-food road blocks, and massive animal farms produce threats such as unethical treatment of animals and food-borne pathogen spikes. With these dilemmas revolving around the food world, it is natural for one to ponder, “Are human’s inherently omnivorous, eating both animal and plant based products, or were we suppose to be receiving nutrients solely from a vegetarian diet?” Kathy Freston, author of The Lean: A Revolutionary (and Simple!) 30-Day Plan for Healthy, Lasting Weight Loss, discusses her viewpoint surrounding the dilemma by writing “Shattering the Meat Myth: Humans are Natural Vegetarians.” Freston’s answer to the questions presented above
Foer provides us with countless information regarding the cruelty animals face, a result of factory farming. The living conditions for animals in this industry can be very disturbing and inhumane, and the slaughtering process of these animals is just as bad. In the “Hiding / Seeking” chapter, Foer shares with his readers the degradation of the animals he encounters at factory farms he’s investigated. He uses imagery to colorfully recount his experiences on these farms “There are tens of thousands of turkey chicks. Fist-sized, with feathers the color of sawdust, they’re nearly invisible on the sawdust floor.” (Foer, pg. 88) Here Foer is giving us a visual that emphases the horror these animals face. As his investigation prolongs he stumbles upon a locked door, Foer says “nothing will unsettle me more than the locked doors. Nothing will better capture the whole sad business of...
Pollan gives another well-addressed argument to his readers concerning the gap between humans and their prey. He portrays our society as far from nature and that meat in grocery stores is made to look “as little like parts of animals as possible” (Pollan 307). To back his ideas, Pollan quotes “Why Look at Animals” by John Berger which explains how when consumers make eye contact with their prey, this builds a relationship between the two causing the predator to consume their meat without looking away (Pollan 307). This causes that person to not want to know what they are eating because people are used to not knowing what they are eating. If a non-fiction book was only filled with facts, readers would quickly lose interest and not want to read it.
“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.
...hen rules and the enforcement of them in the meatpacking industry and slaughterhouses. However, Schlosser disregards to provide a solution. He simply points the finger and leaves the reader depressed, without means or logic to correct the situation. After reading, we enthusiastically agreed with Schlosser when he pulled on our emotional series. His logic was also substantial in this chapter with his thorough research and extensive truthful support. However, because he does not offer any solution to the problem, it diminished significantly from his argument. Although Schlosser's argument cannot be labeled an attack, in our minds, it certainly became nothing short of an overly emotional, well-jointed rage. Schlosser uses these numbers to show the errors of certain meat packing companies and in turn, how this has caused massive illness and injury to the general public.
“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 so many people loathe of blood, and why so few people can easily kill and be slaughter animal, 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. Realization the necessity of refraining from meat is especially difficult because people consume it for a long time, and in addition, there is a certain attitude to the meat as to the product that is useful, nourishing and even prestigious. On the other hand, the constant consumption of meat has made the vast majority of people completely emotionless towards it. However, there must be some real and strong reasons for refusal of consumption of meat and as I noticed they were always completely different. So, even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to resemble that of its roots, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not merely a matter of personal health.
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.
Factory farms have portrayed cruelty to animals in a way that is horrific; unfortunately the public often does not see what really goes on inside these “farms.” In order to understand the conditions present in these factory farms, it must first be examined what the animals in these factory farms are eating. Some of the ingredients commonly used in feeding the animals inside factory farms include the following: animal byproducts, plastic, drugs and chemicals, excessive grains, and meat from members of the same species. (Adams, 2007) These animals are tortured and used for purely slaughter in order to be fed on. Typically large numbers of animals are kept in closed and tight confinements, having only little room to move around, if even that. These confinements can lead to suffocation and death and is not rare. Evidence fr...
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 ...