Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical arguments for eating meat
How eating meat affects animals
Ethical arguments for eating meat
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical arguments for eating meat
Is it possible to be an ethical meat-eater? Well, in my opinion, it is not ethical. There are many animals that suffer in the process of being slaughtered. Federal law requires mammals be stunned prior to slaughter. Typically, electric current is used to induce a heart attack or seizure. Then a captive bolt gun is used to deliver a blow to the skull or to shoot a rod into the animal’s brain. Eating meat is not ethical; animals suffer, they are tortured, because there are not enough Federal regulations protecting the animals, and there are environmental issues, as well as the health issues concerning the consumption of meat.
As the animals move up the line they can see what is about to happen to them, some of the animals struggle and in turn are abused by frustrated workers, who are under pressure to keep the slaughter lines moving at rapid speeds. It is not uncommon for the animal to suffer one or two failed stuns. In this event, the animal may be paralyzed without losing consciousness and may regain their senses after being hung on the bleed rail, I would consider that torture. To soften a hog’s hide for skinning, hogs are dunked in tanks of hot water after being stunned. If a hog is not stunned properly they can be conscious as they are lowered into the hot tanks squealing and kicking to be scalded and drowned.
As for birds, over 95percent of U.S. land animals killed for food are birds, yet there are no Federal law requiring they be handled humanely.[Poultry slaughter is done with neck-cutting machines that routinely miss, slicing open the chicken’s wing, face, and other body parts. Numerous birds enter the scalding tanks for feather removal while fully conscious]. There should be some kind of Federal regulations that mandate m...
... middle of paper ...
...farmers and ranchers today raise 13 percent more beef from 30 percent fewer cattle. The modern cattle rancher uses less water, produces less greenhouse gas, and is preventing overgrazing. Cattlemen today are more environmentally sustainable than they were 30 to 40 years. Although cattle farmers have a more efficient beef production today, producing 16 percent less carbon emissions, using 33 percent less land, and requiring 12 percent less water to maintain.
In conclusion, eating meat is still unethical, because even with these changes that the cattlemen and ranchers have done over the years, trying to improve the industry, it cannot make up for the damage done. There are animals still suffering and being tortured and more should be done to help them. These are some of the reasons I have for not eating meat; it’s my own personal choice. And I choose to be meat-free.
On the other hand, meat is easy to digest and therefore, eating meat is also a way of converting energy that we actually can't eat, such as the energy from grass, even though there is not much energy left. A recent report released by vegetarians stated; "Growing crops is at least five times more energy efficient than crazing cattle, twenty times more efficient than raising chickens, and over fifty times more efficient than raising feedlot cattle! In this way, eating animal products clearly wastes energy resources that were naturally formed over millions of years, and in the process spews pollution into the environment we live in." Vegetarians maybe biased because they are already against eating meat, but these results do back up the point that this essay is based upon. Another point of view of vegetarians and animal rights supporters is that grazing cattle just for food is inhumane as the animals then have to be killed.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."( Schopenhauer). Vegetarianism and animal rights movement have been crossing each other since 70’s. The meeting point between two is veganism which means strict vegetarianism. Vegetarianism was firstly founded as being formed on ethical issues and then it became mostly based on health reasons. Even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to its early days, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not a mere health choice.
Vegetarians often argue that consuming meat is immoral and causes extreme environmental devastation. It appears that the only compelling arguments that vegetarians can come up with are environmental. Those
This article was explaining the reasons behind why people think that eating meat is alright. It was kind of supporting my action therefore my thoughts about eating meat still remain the same. I’m going to continue eating meat even after reading this article. The article does have some arguments as to why vegetarians don’t eat meat. Reasons that people decided not to eat meat included moral responsibilities and concerns for every animals. Another reason included meat being disgusting because it could contain pathogens that made people sick. These reasoning prompted me to consider becoming a vegetarians however I know that I can’t become a vegetarian. It was in my nature to eat meat. Since I can’t became vegetarians, I was planning to reduce my meat intake a little. Instead of eating pigs, beefs, fishes, and turkeys, I planned to just eat chicken for now on. For each meal, I planned to just have less meat than I would usually eat. Because I cooked my own meals most of the time, I could change the amount of chicken meat I put into my meal. For example instead of cooking a whole chicken, I could use three fourth of the whole
Meat has become a part of our culture in our country, where it is expected as part of each meal of the day. But the production of the meat raises questions on whether eating meat is ethical in people’s eyes. Studies in recent years have shown that the growing impact of our meat eating culture, has negatively affected different aspects around us. The problem is not about whether people should or should not eat meat, but that we should focus on how the production of meat can have negative affects and how we can limit those problems.
The Animal Welfare Act, as the American Veterinary Medical Association (2016) defines, is “the federal law governing the care and use of laboratory animals in the United States”. It goes on to say that the American Welfare Act’s “regulations spell out requirements for veterinary care, food and water, protection from temperature extremes, shelter from outdoor elements, sanitation, and record keeping”. Chickens are also excluded from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. According to the USDA, this Act “requires the proper treatment and humane handling of all food animals slaughtered in United States Department of Agriculture inspected slaughter plants” (USDA). While the USDA states that this act covers all food animals, the Humane Slaughter Act specifically excludes all birds.
Some of the main misconceptions about feedlot cattle is that they are one of the leading causes of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are among the main causes of global warming and many don’t know a lot about cattle or global warming in general and are quick to find something to blame even with sufficient information to support it. We need the cattle industry for most of everyday needs not just meat and feedlots are the only efficient option to fill our needs. Although cattle produce methane, they aren’t a large contributor of greenhouse gasses. Feedlot cattle produce less greenhouse emissions than grass fed/organic cattle, and feedlots work to reduce methane emissions.
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.
For me, the decision to remove meat from my diet stemmed solely from the belief that humans have no right to eat any living creature — period. In short, I believe all lives have equal value, even if they’re a non-human animal. An offshoot from this, which also helped fuel my vegetarianism, includes the horrendous treatment animals endure for the sake of consumption.
Many people don’t believe think anything of what they eat or how it got there. But the harsh truth is the meat that you eat was once a living, breathing creature that had feeling and emotions. Maybe next time you order a steak or chicken nuggets you should think about the animals that went through extreme pain and conditions for you to eat. Not only is it inhumane to put animals through such pain, not eating meat and having a vegetarian lifestyle can have huge benefits to animals, the environment, and your health.
I believe that using animals for food is the only reason for killing animals. They are the best. Some people may argue that meat is not needed in a balanced diet and alternatives to vegetables, fruits, pulses and dairy produce. can be consumed for protein instead, but we have canine teeth. We are suited to eating meat like other carnivorous and omnivorous predators.
For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.
When these agricultural resources are given to the animals involved in meat production, these resources are lost. Besides the loss of land, the process of animal production is contributing to pollution and other greenhouse gases that are doing irreplaceable damage to the environment and contribute to untold negative health
People have used the argument that eating meat plays an important role in the overall health of a human and it is the way the cycle of life is meant to be, but this is not the case. Eating meat is unnecessary. Becoming a vegetarian could save countless animals from unnecessary suffering, improve human health, and help preserve numerous natural resources.
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 ...