Throughout “The Omnivore's Dilemma” Pollan makes it evident that the overall callous nature of the meat industry, harsh living conditions, and the brutal deaths of animals are all in the name of pleasure. Although, He makes good claims as to how these realities of this industry are justified but essentially it is clear that indulging in meat products does sacrifice morals. Morals you may or may not have depending on one's stance on ethics involving the consumption of animals.
For many, eating meat has created a contradiction of moral values. Polland states in the beginning of chapter thirteen that the act of hunting and killing animals is very stigmatized, even amongst meat eaters. Yet, the same people who criticize hunters continue to reap
…show more content…
the benefits of the actions that they criticize. They are quite literally biting the hand that feeds them. Polland once again emphasizes this hypocrisy when he states that despite the inability of many to see any wrong in eating animals like chickens, cows, and pigs, half of the dogs in The United States would be receiving Christmas gifts during the year of this book's publication. Therefore insinuating that some animals deserve love and compassion and yet others aren't even granted suitable living conditions or the right to live without ultimately being packaged up and finely diced to the point that they don't even closely resemble the creature that they once were. They are no longer a living animal but simply food. These animals are presented in a grocery store in a way that makes the consumer forget that they are even eating something that was a sentient being at one point, now enabling the consumer to consume blindly and without full consciousness of what they are actually partaking in. Polland quotes animal rightist who gives an opposition to the “animals eat other animals too” argument presented by meat eaters to justify their meat eating, by stating that “humans don’t need to kill other creatures in order to survive, carnivorous animals do (Polland, 314).
He even goes as far to say that those who chose to discontinue meat from their diet are a more evolved and enlightened being, seeing that human enlightenment is advancing to a point that eating animals will be seen as morally wrong in the same way slavery and the oppression of women was. (Polland, 306) Although, He also states that vegetarianism can bring about complications at least at this point in time. Polland fathoms a situation that would bring about discomfort due to this differ in their diet. For example, if he attended a dinner party there would have to be some sort of accommodation made by the host in order to tailor to his specific dietary preferences. He also mentions “cultural alienation”. Food is obviously integrated into many cultures and having such a drastic alteration in one's diet can significantly estrange them from their culture (Polland, 314). Humans are social beings. We thrive off of social connections and formed relationships, without them, there will be some sort of mental repercussion. Feeling distanced and separated from your culture or continuously feeling discomfort during social interactions will ultimately have negative effects on
people. To a certain extent, people know what they’re eating. Even a sum of children comprehends that their happy meals come with the cost of an animal's life and yet nobody thinks about it hard enough to decide if the see any wrong with what they are choosing to eat. Peter Singer, a moral philosopher Polland mentions in his book mentions the term “speciesist” describing someone who doesn't believe an animals rights or moral consideration due to the fact that they are an animal (Polland, 308). To some degree, we all apprehend that what happens to certain animals is not right but continue to partake in this industry with the role of the consumer. By doing this, we are admitting to being “speciesist” and we grasp what these creatures endure is inimical, but we enjoy the temporary satisfaction that meat brings more than we truly care about an animal's life ending. Throughout “The Omnivore's Dilemma” Pollan makes it evident that the overall callous nature of the meat industry, harsh living conditions, and the brutal deaths of animals are all in the name of pleasure. Some are penalized for the act of killing animals by those who consume the same killed animals creating hypocrisy. The consumer is protected from the truth or more accurately the truth is purposefully hidden from the consumer causing them to not grasp the full extent of the industry that they are involved in. The consumer also allows themselves to partake in the meat industry with a basic level of comprehensiveness despite the conditions in which the animals they consume are under before their deaths. Although, He makes good claims as to how these realities of this industry are justified one being the complications one may face due to cultural alienation. However, essentially it is clear that indulging in meat products does sacrifice morals.
Many families in America can’t decide what food chain to eat from. In the book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan lists four food chains: Industrial, Industrial Organic, Local Sustainable, and Hunter-Gatherer. The Industrial food chain is full of large farms that use chemicals and factories. Industrial Organic is close to it except it doesn’t use as many chemicals and the animals have more space. Local Sustainable is where food is grown without chemicals, the animals have freedom and they eat what they were born to eat. Lastly, Hunter-Gatherer is where you hunt and grow your own food. The omnivore's dilemma is trying to figure out what food chain to eat from. Local Sustainable is the best food chain to feed the United States because it is healthy and good for the environment.
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.
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
Michael Pollan’s purpose of writing Omnivore’s Dilemma came about when he realizes that society is unbelievably unhealthy due to the abundance of food. The two conflicting logics that Pollan introduces are the logic of nature and the logic of industry; these two logics are reflected through various ways of raising livestock animals. The logic of nature consists of raising livestock animals in a pastoral environment where animals interact with one another and avoid the use of artificial chemicals; whereas, the logic of industry settles on raising livestock animals unnaturally. Growing cattle through the use of corn has allowed meat to be produced in large quantities and in a short time as described in the chapter “Feedlot: Making Meat”
In the book “Omnivore’s Dilemma” , Michael Pollan delves into the the evolution of the industrial food system. There are many parallels that can be drawn from what was discussed in the book and covered in lecture regarding food systems. One example is the importance of corn. The central ingredient to the industrial food system is corn. In fact, Todd Dawson, a biologist at Berkeley describes North Americans as “corn chips with legs” (Pollan, 2007, p. 23). Until reading this book, I was not aware of the profound impact corn has on our lives. The book focuses on corn’s role in North American diets. However, in this course we learned about the significance of corn in certain cultures. In fact, corn is central to the culture and identity of guatemalan people that when they move away they rely on MASECA to continue eating their beloved corn tortillas (Maupin).
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
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
“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.
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.
“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.
Rachels, J. (2013). The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism. In L. Vaughn, Contemporary Moral Arguments - Readings in Ethical Issues Second Edition (pp. 617-622). New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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 ...