More handpicked essays just for you.
Argument essay on why you should not be vegan
Ethical dilemma about animal rights
Argument essay on why you should not be vegan
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I’m an individual of Irish descent who lives in Wisconsin, so there is nothing refutable about the impact that meat and animal byproducts such as milk and eggs has had on my upbringing and daily diet (not forgetting potatoes of course). However, my reasoning for eating these food items isn’t because of necessity based on a dietary need or market constraint. I eat these items because I’m a young male athlete who requires a ridiculous caloric intake and these are the food items that I grew up purchasing, preparing and consuming. The scenarios in which I eat meat now occur on a sporadic basis depending on current costs, meat sources and diet, but are greatly influenced by the food culture I grew up with not by whether it is permissible or not. …show more content…
While after careful consideration, I believe my decision to eat meat is permissible, it greatly contradicts with the evidence I have been provided surrounding the basis of sentience in regards to the animals that I consume. In this essay I will argue that while it is permissible to eat meat, it is not permissible to do so on moral grounds, and when occurring it only is supported based within the economic, and dietary confines of R. M. Hare’s demi-vegetarianism argument. To further elaborate, I am in accordance with Peter Singer’s argument in All Animals Are Equal on equality of consideration.
That being said, I am in agreement with it solely because there to my knowledge, has yet to be an argument made that colludes with Singer’s premises but makes the distinct notion the basic principles that surround eating meat, that being an ecological component. Using membership of Homo-sapiens is arbitrary and as such, moral importance should be based off of sentience therefore lending animals equal consideration which provides a further basis for Hare’s own discussion on suffering and killing, it only lends credibility to the notion of providing a full and enjoyable life, regardless of how short lived prior to an animal slaughtering. After further consideration, I believe that Singer's argument does provide it to be impermissible to eat meat based on morals (in the conceptual framework of sentience), but it does not provide enough detail in which one can truly distinguish the fine line between morals and the basic primordial instincts ingrained in humans to maintain ecological …show more content…
balance. It is already proven that the basis for eating meat solely on the discretion of dietary needs has been proven false.
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
it. I believe that it is morally permissible to eat meat, but in doing so you must recognize the divide between the morality and the physicality of it. When the meat source has ‘metaphysically speaking’ an enjoyable life compared to that of no life or existence at all, then you are justified in eating meat. Furthermore, if the farm maximizes quality adjusted life years, and sentience is taken into consideration by ensuring limited to no suffering occurs then the meat consumption is permissible. This is in collusion with the supporting argument that if not in the factory or organic farms, animals would be killed by diseases and other natural predators that are far more merciless. In conclusion the eating of meat is permissible, however it is immoral due to the taking of a sentient life, but is accepted as is the natural cycle of life.
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
...oss’ paper. Therefore, this objection is not sound because the number of naïve people are rapidly dwindling. The second objection stated that one person has no effect on the factory farming industry, so giving up meat is pointless because the industry is too large to feel the effects of someone converting to vegetarianism. I refuted this objection by saying that, yes, one person alone will not make a difference, but when more and more people become vegetarians, the industry will be forced to respond by producing less animals, therefore, preventing more animal suffering. Although these two objections were strong and valid, I believe I was able to successfully defend Norcross’ argument that factory farming is wrong and cruel.
The population of the earth is now 7 billion and rising. Demand for meat products is rising day by day and companies need to meet the consumer demand and to do so they forget morals about factory farming for animals. However some people over the world people are turning into vegetarians, some do it to improve their health and some do it for religion. After reading the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” by Professer Gary Steiner, I came to agree with many of his well stated arguments against meat eating like: cruelty to animals, animals being given hormones and antibiotics or animals not living a good quality life. In his essay he constantly repeats about thanksgiving and the turkey which didn’t live its life to the fullest.
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.
“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.
Is he then saying that the animal’s interest in preserving its life should not be regarded as highly as the utility we derive from the animal’s death, as long as the animal does not suffer? It seems that to be morally consistent, Singer should similarly oppose the killing of animals, not just the deliberate causation of their suffering. Singer’s argument is certainly persuasive. However, his argument only goes so far as to say that speciesism is arbitrary and we should replace one arbitrary measure with another – that of sentience. I think that more needs to be done to show why sentience, not any other quality, should be the defining characteristic for moral consideration.
“Let food be thy medicine and thy medicine be thy food.” stated Hippocrates, the father of Western medicine, 460-377 BC (Silverstone 15). Every American should live by this quote, but things have drastically changed since Hippocrates voiced that divine statement . Nowadays peoples personification of health has nothing to do with what we consume on an everyday basis. Our generation, most certainly will drive straight to McDonalds’s for a Big Mac without hesitation of the harm it is doing to your body. Education of health is essential; people need to learn what they are eating and how it will affect them in the long run. Due to mega rich corporations and institutions, they are keeping all of us in this denial because of pouring millions of dollars into efforts to keep us from knowing what is truly going on (Silverstone 16). Whether it’s to help reduce your risk of diseases, or purely to attain better health, leaving farmed animals entirely out of your diet is an effortless decision with life-long benefits. Plant-based diets will strengthen your immune system, beautify your skin, increase your energy, and reduce risk of various diseases (Silverstone 1). Being vegetarian is a step in the right direction by protecting your health, animals, and the environment.
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.
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.
What the American culture is used to is eating three meals with a few snacks in between a day, and two out of the three meals usually involve eating meat. Most people don’t realize the risks of eating meat. Today’s medical experts say that avoiding meat helps you avoid saturated fat. They have found out from studies that women who eat meat daily have a fifty percent greater risk of developing heart disease than vegetarian women and a sixty-eight percent greater risk in men (staff writer). People may not know about serious diseases meat can obtain such as, mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth disease. In the September 1999 issue of the Emerging Infectious Diseases, approximately 76 million food borne illnesses- resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths occur in the United States each year from improperly cooked or diseased meat (Licher). That is a lot! You can also get salmonella poisoning from meat. People think that the problems come from eating red meat and are opting for fish over steak, but new evidence proves that fish can cause health problems too, risks that can’t be cooked away. This is a growing problem called histamine poisoning (Peck). Children are learning at a younger age that they don’t like meat, maybe because they don’t like the taste, or maybe it’s because they have a fear of eating their favorite cartoon or movie hero. For example, the pig from the movie “babe”.
Peter Singer’s argument for animal equality is mainly dependent on the principle of equality. The principle of equality states that we as humans are all equal in a moral sense, meaning that we are each permitted to equal consideration of our interests. Singer also states that the principle of equality cannot only depend on specific qualities of humans (such as race), which would mean that it cannot only be applied to humans either. By this, Peter Singer means that non-human animals should also receive equal consideration of their interests, but only if they are sentient. Anything that is sentient is able to feel both pain and pleasure. In my opinion, sentience is the most important part of Singer’s entire argument because it gives clear reason to why most of the human race should become vegetarian. Singer’s argument for vegetarianism (and just his beliefs in general) is based completely on utilitarianism. He would argue that by eating meat, we do not maximize overall pleasure and actually causes unnecessary suffering. The reason that the suffering is unnecessary is that ...
Eating is a staple of life. In every culture, food customs and variety are part of that cultures definition. In American society and other cultures, meat is a main food that is consumed, yet not by everyone. Dating back to medieval times, some meats were not consumed due to the "impurities" they were seen to be by the religions of the time. Throughout history, this has developed from not eating red meat, to not eating any meat at all, and even further to the vegan extreme of not eating any animal products at all. Though not everyone feels this way, more and more people change their eating habits every day.
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 ...