The issue of meat consumption has been a controversial topic on whether to allow the practice or discontinue it, non-meat eaters argue it’s unethical because it is abusive to animals. On the other hand, meat consumers argue that eating meat is ethical as long as meat eaters are conscious of how their meat is collected and the treatment of livestock is fair. The consumption of meat is an act that an individual decides whether to partake in or not. Therefore, the option of eating meat should not be completely taken away, but it should be limited. Eating meat ties in with vegetarian and vegan diets, in the sense that both have to follow guidelines to create an ethical approach to eating any grown foods. The consumption of food is ethical when …show more content…
In sum, the option of eating meat shouldn’t be completely taken away, but it should be limited to a reasonable amount to serve as a compromise to both meat eaters and non-meat eaters. The consumption of meat is ethical when meat eaters are aware of where their meat is coming from and how it is collected. In source A, Wendell Berry argues there is not a problem with meat consumption; the issue lies with not knowing where your food comes from, this is being a passive eater. The harm of being a passive eater is being ungrateful of what you are eating and not acknowledging the sacrifice of an animal’s life for a meal. Berry further explains how knowing where your food comes from would make consumers grateful of the harvesting process and aware of the treatment of the livestock and produce, this is crucial to both meat eaters and non-meat eaters because it makes them more inclined to research and learn about opposing views. Hence, creating a better understanding of harvesting both meat and non-meat products. Animal activists, who are against meat consumption, would argue that all meat distributors are all …show more content…
Animal activists accuse meat eaters of being critical when it comes to picking which species to consume. For example, in source D, Jonathan Safran Foer accuses meat eaters of being fickle of the species they consume. He portrays meat eaters as being discriminatory towards the idea of eating certain species by contrasting the U.S’ meat eating choices with countries such as India, Spain, and French. However, Foer’s argument is impractical. To hold the whole world to the same diet standards is unreasonable; the differences in religion, accessibility, taste preference, and etc. makes that sort of radical ideology out of bounds. Regarding Foer’s logic of ‘all meat eaters should consume any species’ flesh,’ should also be applied to all non-meat eaters and their diet preferences. It is true that meat eaters have different preferences when it pertains to the species they consume, however, the same applies to vegetarians and vegans. To result in a compromise, both opposing sides must recognize how unreasonable it is to force the whole population to eat a diet composed of the two extremes; which are to consume all kinds of meat or all kinds of plants. The most realistic solution is to limit the amount of meat the U.S consumes. According to source E, the U.S is the second highest consumers of meat, first place goes to Luxembourgers. In
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).
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
Corliss, Richard. “Should We All Be Vegetarians?” Time. Time Inc., 15 Jul. 2002. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
Most of us do not think twice about the foods we pick up from the supermarket. Many Americans have a preconceived belief that the food being sold to us is safe, and withholds the highest standard of quality. Certainly, compared to many places in the world, this is true. But is the United States sincerely trying to carry out these standards, or have we begun to see a reverse in the health and safety of our food- and more explicitly in our meat? Jonathan Foer, author of “Eating Animals” argues for reform within the food industry- not only for the humane treatment of animals but moreover for our own health. Although Foer exposes the ills within the food industries in order to persuade readers to change their diets for the better, his “vegetarianism or die” assessment may be too extreme for most Americans. The true ills do not start with the meat, but with industrialized production of it through methods practiced by factory farming.
“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.
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.
However, Hare’s pro demi-vegetarian argument provides an unequivocal view on the discussion of economic, ecological, and moral topics. While the look into market trends of meat is lacking Hare discusses a reality of the meat industry and its food competitors, that being the cost behind animal rearing and husbandry. While the high costs incurred does not entail permissibility the surrounding circumstances do. If fodder is grown on terrain only suitable for a pasture, then as a result husbandry and animal domestication (and later slaughter) is permissible because the economic consequences of harvesting crops would greatly outweigh the benefits and as such the community improves more from the meat/animal byproduct industry. This economical and ecological argument is one of several that Hare provides in his article Why I Am Only A Demi-Vegetarian, in addition to the market term being coined and reasoning behind
Every day across America millions of people wake up to start their morning. Throughout the day the vast majority of these people will consume meat, but 3% will replace the pig, cow, and chicken products for vegetable or fruit made meals (Harris). These vegetarians all have many different reasons to make this choice. This decision is a huge change in one’s life and is not without questions. Some people may wonder why would anyone abstain from the amazing food that contains meat. This essay will briefly explain the history of vegetarianism, the reasons for vegetarianism, and answer questions about vegetarianism. Vegetarian diets are all around better than diets containing meat because of three main reasons; the abuse of animals, the environmental damage, and the health benefits for humans.
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.
Realizing 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 to consume 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. As believed, vegetarianism was originally founded in ancient India and was generally formed on ethical and moral issues.
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.
Every person has the ability to make their own choice of whether to eat meat or not. However, eating meat is directly tied to negative health effects, pollution leading to a depletion of ozone, and the depletion of hundreds of thousands of acres of land “wasted” on animal production when they could be used to solve the hunger crisis or lower emission levels. What humans eat is no longer a matter of choice; it has become a matter of life and death. Literally, the future of the whole planet rests on the decision of whether or not to eat meat. If humans chose to eat less meat the world that wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences (outlined above.) Vegetarianism is one possibility, as is Veganism; however the world would be
However, many people still refuse to be a vegetarian for different reasons. Some people prefer the taste of meat, and some people believe that they are born to eat meat. Despite that about 2 billion people in the world live basically on the meat diet, around 4 billion people live mainly on a plant-based diet because of food shortage(Pimentel ＆ Pimentel, 2003, pp660S). As everyone knows, the number of population is growing. For example, the total U.S. population doubled in the previous 60 years, and it may double again in the next 70 years (Pimentel ＆ Pimentel, 2003, pp660S). People won’t have enough meat to eat in the future. On the other hand, a well-planned vegetarian diet offers many health benefits. Therefore, people should become vegetarian because it benefits to huma...
As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention to force anybody to become a vegetarian, but I hope that my argumentation would be strong enough to make some people think about it, at least. In this essay I will try to present this point of view, expressing my personal feelings and showing scientific facts about the problem.
Vegetarians tend to be healthier than those who consume meat. This is due to the prevalent unnatural chemicals used in the processing of meats, and eating these are unsuitable for the body. Meats already contain harmful amounts of cholesterol, and over-consumption of red meat can lead to early heart disease. Animals that are raised on farms for their meat are not treated well, and this mistreatment can lead to harm in the meat they are producing. Although one life choice cannot change one’s environmental