Even If You Like Meat Argument Analysis

302 Words1 Page

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

Show More
Related

  • More Pros Than Cons In A Meat-Free Life Analysis

    125 Words  | 1 Pages

    The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian

    Read More

  • Puppies Pigs And People Summary

    634 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    American consumers think of voting as something to be done in a booth when election season comes around. In fact, voting happens with every swipe of a credit card in a supermarket, and with every drive-through window order. Every bite taken in the United States has repercussions that are socially, politically, economically, and morally based. How food is produced and where it comes from is so much more complicated than the picture of the pastured cow on the packaging seen when placing a vote. So what happens when parents are forced to make a vote for their children each and every meal? This is the dilemma that Jonathan Safran Foer is faced with, and what prompted his novel, Eating Animals. Perhaps one of the core issues explored is the American factory farm. Although it is said that factory farms are the best way to produce a large amount of food at an affordable price, I agree with Foer that government subsidized factory farms use taxpayer dollars to exploit animals to feed citizens meat produced in a way that is unsustainable, unhealthy, immoral, and wasteful. Foer also argues for vegetarianism and decreased meat consumption overall, however based on the facts it seems more logical to take baby steps such as encouraging people to buy locally grown or at least family farmed meat, rather than from the big dogs. This will encourage the government to reevaluate the way meat is produced. People eat animals, but they should do so responsibly for their own benefit.

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Factory Farming: Alastair Norcross's Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases

    918 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Alastair Norcross’ paper, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” he describes a situation in which a man, Fred, has lost his ability to enjoy the gustatory pleasure of chocolate due to a car accident. However, it is known that puppies under duress produce cocoamone, the hormone Fred needs in order to enjoy chocolate again. Since no one is in the cocoamone business, Fred sets up twenty six puppy cages, and mutilates them resulting in cocoamone production in the puppy’s brains. Each week he slaughters a dog and consumes the cocoamone. When he is caught, he explains to the judge and jury that his actions are no different from factory farming because he is torturing and killing puppies for gustatory pleasure similar to how factory farms torture and kill cows, chickens, etc. for other people’s gustatory pleasure. You, the reader are meant to think that this is unacceptable, and therefore, denounce factory farming. Although there are many valid objections to this argument, I am in agreement with Norcross and shall be supporting him in this paper. I think the two most practical objections are that (1) most consumers don’t know how the animals are treated whereas Fred clearly does, and (2) if Fred stops enjoying chocolate, no puppies will be tortured, but if a person becomes a vegetarian, no animals will be saved due to the small impact of one consumer. I shall explain the reasoning behind these objections and then present sound responses in line with Norcross’ thinking, thereby refuting the objections.

    Read More

  • Kantianism And Utilitarianism

    708 Words  | 2 Pages

    After reading the Ethics of What We Eat, one may conclude that there are two normative principles that can be applied when ruling the ethics behind our food (Utilitarianism and Kantianism). Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to reverse it. On the contrary, Kantianism does not concern itself with the consequences in considering what’s right or wrong. Instead, what’s right is not the maximization of happiness, but the morality of the actions that lead to such happiness. Because of these opposite ideologies, using animals for food, its environmental impact, and its impact on global poverty can be controversial.

    Read More

  • Norcross: Torturing Puppies And Eating Meat Summary

    1037 Words  | 3 Pages

    Norcross expresses that when he said that “it is, of course unfortunate for Fred that he can no longer enjoy the taste of chocolate, but that in no way excuses the imposition of severe suffering on the puppies.” Therefore, Norcross believes Fred is morally wrong for having the puppies suffer in order for him to be able to enjoy the taste of chocolate again. In Norcross’ next premises, he believes that people whom purchase and eat factory farm meats while knowing what torture that animals endure in the farms are equally morally wrong like Fred with the puppies. People who consume factory meats are doing that for their own pleasure too, like Fred. According to Norcross, people do not need to consume meat for health reasons. Norcross points out that the majority of people who eliminate meats from their diet, do not suffer any ill health issues and can live healthy without

    Read More

  • Summary Of An Animals Place By Michael Pollan

    497 Words  | 1 Pages

    “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.

    Read More

  • Alastair Norcross: The Marginal Case

    1872 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • what we ought to eat

    774 Words  | 2 Pages

    Christine Cuomo spoke about many interesting topics on what we ought to eat. She presented a very good argument on how eating meet is what we should no be eating and that rather more healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables are better for us in several ways and for many reasons. Christine is an ethics professor at the University of Cincinnati and during here presentation she made arguments that were somewhat controversial about what people ought to eat and what they shouldn’t ought to eat; and why. Even though some of here argument were controversial she seemed to put her perspective in very understandable ways that even those against her position would still enjoy hearing what she has to say. She is a vegetarian but is not one to force the idea on you, and she still eats cheese and drink milk. She talks about how animals are slaughtered for food and its not fair to them. She presents an argument on how butchers treat animals horribly and even though they are a source for our food they is no reason for animal brutality. During the presentation there was a picture of a high pile of pigs slaughtered. The picture was quite grossum and didn’t need much words to tell the story. Animals are just treated very violently as if they have no type of feeling for pain. This is not right. Personally I would like to see animals treated better before they are slaughtered because they have feelings of pain just as we do. I wish more people, including myself, can have the will power to stop eating meet to send a message to their butchers and factories that are displaying such animal brutality.

    Read More

  • Gary Francione Killing Animals Essay

    710 Words  | 2 Pages

    A problem for the welfarist approach is that it doesn’t protect animals interests. Their interests are only protected because it’s economical beneficial for humans. Corporations have an advantage in marketing if they tell the public that they support the way farmers treat animals (Francione 12). Being told that animals are being treated humanely encourages individuals to feel better about animal exploitation. These slaughterhouses reinforce animals as property. Welfarists argue that changing methods in the slaughterhouses will decrease demands. Instead its promoting animal

    Read More

  • Ethics and Morality in Vegetarianism

    1942 Words  | 4 Pages

    “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.

    Read More

  • Should We Be Vegetarians?

    1159 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Why Eating Meat is Morally Impermissible

    1449 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Is Eating Dog Inmoral or Not?

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Jonathan Safran Foer’s “Let Them Eat Dog”, he discusses a controversial, yet debatable topic. The topic concerns the eating of dogs, and whether or not it is moral and right. This is an issue that has two sides to consider; it is either completely right or completely wrong, there is no in-between. The argument to eat dog is presented with the use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Foer has a number of important arguments why eating dogs is moral and unmoral, in the end he leaves it to the judgment of the reader as to which side they come down on.

    Read More

  • It is Better to be a Vegetarian

    1128 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Even If You Like Meat Argument Analysis

Open Document