In the history of humanity, humans have consumed plenty of things, from plants to human flesh. It is all about survival. However as societies became more complex and states began to form, several changes in the diet were created, mostly by religious principles. However there are underlying causes for these dietary restrictions besides the religious aspect. Both Marvin Harris and Mary Douglas propose some of the underlying causes for the dietary restrictions in the old texts. Harris proposes several reasons for the dietary restrictions in the Leviticus, including moral, ethical and functional, while Douglas presents the cost benefit and a historical reasons for dietary restrictions in several religious text. Harris approach is the cost benefit analysis of raising some types of animals. He claims that it is more efficient for humans to eat plants since the energy lost in the food chain is less. It was better to eat plants rather than feeding plants to animal in order to get meat. By consuming animal flesh, humans only get 0.02% of the original sunlight captured by photosynthesis. Also the raising of cattle or domestic animals creates pressure in ecosystems and reproductive pressure, causing people to make a choice between crops or livestock. These factors are a key in developing states, especially in the ancient times. Despite the pressure created by the raising of domestic animals, they had plenty of benefits besides the value of meat. Domestic animals were used as tractions machines, fiber producers, fertilizers, producers of wool, hides, milk. In fact they were more valuable alive for their products than dead for their meat. The value of animal byproducts explains why meat had disappeared from the table of some ancient civili... ... middle of paper ... ...efore unholy and received no blessing from God, granted only by the care if man. Only the wild animals with the cloven hoof and cud chewers were considered clean, this is the first defining factors of clean animals, the second is the uses of animals and their value, such as the pigs which have no value since they produce only meat and do not chew the cud, the third defining factor is the real in which the animals live in. In the air only two legged flying birds are clean. In the land only four legged that hop or walk. In the Water only those who swim with fins and have scales are clean. The predatory habits or scavenging was not considered. The dietary rules explored by Douglas were restrictions with the purpose of inspiring meditation, on the purity and completeness of God Works Cited Harris, Marvin. Cannibals and Kings . New York : Vintage Books , 1977. Print.
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).
In the article “The Six-Legged Meat of the Future”, authors Marcel Dicke and Arnold Van Huis explain that due to the environmental effects that is caused by meat, people should begin to consume insects instead of meat. They also argue that due to the rise in production costs of livestock, the rise of human population and using insects in our food would solve some of the problems that are “associated with livestock” (Dicke and Van Huis 345. In addition, the article is not persuasive because even though both Dicke and Van Huis use statistics and evidence to establish their credibility and to build a bridge to their audience and make the audience emotionally involved, their argument is weakened by the use of fallacies.
1985. “An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus” in Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament. Ed., Bernhard Lane.
Early restrictions prior to the initiation of Mosaic dietary laws related directly to the belief that the human race originally consumed just vegetable products, and that it was not until the Flood and the prescriptions relative to Noah’s animal ownership that individuals were pushed to consume animal flesh (Genesis 9:3-4). Initially, it was recognized that animal slaughter was an unclean process, and further, from a historical perspective, it can be argued that the consumption of some animals was just unsafe. The lack of refrigeration and the prevalence of bacterial infection in the flesh of animals determined a lack of safety and the people of this region often saw illness related to meat consumption as ...
Harris explains, “ It becomes easier to understand low energy, small-scale, animal-based systems. As I have already pointed out, cows and oxen provide low energy substitutes for tractors and tractor factories” (Harris 18). Harris is trying to show the substitutes and solutions for the Indian economy for others to see. Harris points out that the cow is more beneficial to the economy and is worth more than just food. He also states that the cow dung is used as a substitute for cooking oil to prepare long lasting meals and also as a paste for household flooring. The author seemingly does this to add emphasis on the usefulness of this animal. Based upon Harris’ analysis, Hindus value energy- and the cow is a valuable necessity for the Hindus to maintain a low energy
...evidence and statistics. A vegetarian diet is becoming more and more popular. Scientific data suggest a relation between vegetarian diet and reduced risk for several chronic diseases including obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and some type of cancer. All this research should make us think and confirm that God knew what He was talking about when He told us in the Bible what to eat and what no to eat.
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.
When we come to chapter 11, it is stated that cleanness and uncleanness has to do principally with food. It deals secondarily with cleanness or uncleanness that is the result of contact with a dead animal, but it seems the reason the dead animal is called unclean is because we couldn't eat it. Even a clean animal, a bull or a sheep, could not be eaten if it were not killed in a sacrificially prescribed way. So it has to do with food or that which is touched when dead.we find first the land creatures, the animals that roam about through the earth (vv. 1-8); then we find in verses 9-12 the water creatures, those that live under water or in the water, and finally we have the flying creatures.
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.
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.
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
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.