...Eating meat has become a ritual since mankind was created. Hunting to survive and to feed, or in other words our ‘survival instinct’ is one of the few traces that our ancestors have left the modern mankind today. Although mankind are not carnivores per say, we have evolved into thinking so. The majority of us have been brought up eating meat and presumably, have never questioned it. Taking these into account, how ethical is meat eating? One can argue that non-human animals also have the same rights and killing them for food and using them as a mean to human gratification, does not treat them respectfully. The fact that one has been raised to eat meat is cannot be an explanation of why mankind started eating meat and it cannot justify the claim that eating meat is ethical. Yet most of us have no idea that when we eat meat, we are in fact making a subconscious choice. When we were growing up, forming our identity and values, it is fair to say that generally our parents decide on whether we eat meat or not and opposed to making our own choice. We were never asked to reflect upon this daily practice that has such profound unethical dimensions and personal implications. Eating animals were just a given; it was just the way things were. However, this kind of argument allows us to eat human flesh all that required is that one is raised in a cannibalistic tradition, because then we can say that ‘this is the way that things are! But what if in a culture eating human was ethically...
Words: 1040 - Pages: 5
...On pages 248-258 Peter Singer and Jim Mason discuss the ethics of eating meat. They bring in several different authors to discuss this idea. However, while they bring in the authors’ the clearest conclusion that they make is that, The moral distance between the food choices made by conscientious omnivores and those made by the most of the population is so great that it seems more appropriate to praise the conscientious omnivores for how far they have come, rather than to criticize them for not having gone further. With that said, I believe that they have not taken a clear stand on whether or not it is ethically ok to eat meat. They bring in Pollan’s idea that if you eat meat that has had a good life, then it is ethically ok to eat meat because, if you did not eat meat then the animals would not be alive. However, with that idea they do bring in the idea that the animals that we eat were once wild animals that had become domesticated. They also brought in the point that by domesticating animals we helped them survive. They heled to show this with the...
Words: 664 - Pages: 3
...Holy Cow! In today’s world the issue of meat eating raises a lot of controversial questions. Many people believe that human intelligence should guide us to forbid from killing animals. This belief is far from my opinion. I was raised in an omnivore family. My father eats over five kilograms of meat every day. He’s strong and healthy. I find it funny how depressed he sometimes gets when he comes home from work and sees that mom made a soup for dinner. It seems like he’s closer to the primitive caveman than any modern human can still be, and this leads me to think that forbidding of meat eating is just as unethical as, some may think, eating it is. Humans are carnivores designed to eat meat. The evidence of thorough research proves that the human body is more of the carnivore than herbivore. The length of our digestive tract is similar to carnivores’. Our stomachs produce hydrochloric acid that breaks down a variety of food by activating protein-splitting enzymes. The HCL is nowhere to be found in herbivores’ organisms. Also, the presence of the multiple stomachs declares a tremendous difference between us and herbivores. These few and a lot more differences destroy the popular claim that people should follow a non-meat diet. The answer to what we should eat is deeply encoded in the structure of our bodies (Comparison Between). The studies also show that going back to Stone Age nutritional habits can be very beneficial. Dr. Staffan Lindeberg, an expert in this field, proved...
Words: 1545 - Pages: 7
...At first, many people were hesitant to wrap their heads around the fact that the food that was being transported to them from far away could be producing something harmful to the environment. Flash forward a couple of years and environmental impact is now one of the biggest arguments in the debate regarding the ethics of eating meat. Such discoveries are backed up by writers like Brian Henning, who writes about how meat production has negatively impacted the environment locally. In his journal, "Standing in Livestock's Long Shadow: The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small Planet," Henning mentions how the production of meat has led to a concerning amount of water waste. The alarming rate in which this is occurring has led the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to believe that by the year 2050, the individuals living in water-stressed populations will rise from 1.5 billion to 3-5 billion (NAO). Unfortunately, meat production is not the only food that pollutes the Earth. Horticulture, the practice of garden cultivation, is not far behind meat regarding pollution. During the 1990's, there was a demand for healthier and more organic foods as consumers became more conscious on what they ate (Fig. 1). Randy Stringer's journal shows how the over-cultivation of Australian land began to contaminate the land with excessive water, fertilizer, and chemical use. Soon enough, environmental problems became linked with the over-farming...
Words: 1225 - Pages: 5
...Vegetarianism Vegetarianism is defined as the life choice of not consuming any meat, poultry, or fish. Those who practice the acts of being a vegetarian eat mostly fruits, nuts, vegetables, and grains. Many vegetarians aren’t opposed to consuming eggs and other dairy and/or other dairy products. Some people choose vegetarianism because they think eating meat is cruel or unethical. They believe that if humans have the option to avoid meat, and still be healthy, then animals are being killed out of selfishness. The majority of people are omnivorous, which means that their diet consists of both plant and animal origins. Most omnivorous people believe that eating meat is not cruel or unethical/unnatural, and that it is a natural cycle of life. Another argument between both sides is whether the human body was made for the consumption of meat or not. The anatomy of a human has evolved to that of a vegetarian. We do not have the carnivorous teeth or large mouths; instead, we’ve developed rounded, flat teeth that are used for chewing more fibrous food. On the other hand, with the large number of omnivores, the human taste buds have come to crave the flavor of meat. But, that is because people have been consuming meat for 2.3 million years. Being vegetarian or omnivorous both have their health benefits, but meat is not a necessity. Vegetarianism has been proven to deliver complete nutritional benefits Eating meat provides healthy vitamins which are proven to boost the human body’s nervous...
Words: 747 - Pages: 3
...For many centuries now, the idea of humans consuming meat has long been debated. Because it is so engraved in our culture and society, many people do not find it morally wrong to eat meat, while others are quick to point out that there is no reason to justify the robbery of life. Killing animals for the satisfaction of human pleasure is an extremely unethical and inhumane act, therefore humankind should resort to vegetarianism. Extensive research has shown repeatedly that humans do not need to eat animal flesh to survive or even stay healthy, it is merely just a choice of humans to eat a particular type of food (Henning, 82). While it is true that meat contains vital proteins necessary for life, there is a plant equivalent of any meat product....
Words: 494 - Pages: 2
...protection offered by the plant, and in some cases the company medical doctors grossly underestimated the nature of his injuries. Vasquez told McCulloch that the plant operators give the workers drugs to improve efficiency, and “let tainted meat go out for sale” (Dolansky, 2003, p.280). McCulloch has seen that the company’s policies on safety in terms of both the meat and the workers are surprisingly poor. He has recently learned that the company wants him to fire Vasquez because he suffered a heart attack and was going to require long and expensive recovery that the company did not want to pay for. Stakeholders John McCulloch McCulloch is involved in this situation because he feels as though he is personally contributing to the operations of a company that he has strong ethical problems with. If he decides to fire Vasquez and continue working at the plant, he will likely continue making good money but he will be unhappy with himself and his job. If he refuses the command he will likely be fired or at the very least have his upward mobility in the company limited. As an employee of the company he is predisposed to allow certain things to occur without complaint, but as a good person with a family he is concerned about the safety of the meat and the...
Words: 1544 - Pages: 7
...It’s A Meat World Why Humans Should Continue to Eat Meat Have you ever driven a long way on the highway or looked around the city you live in and seen all the billboards and advertisements that have something to do with food. Everywhere you look, you see advertisements for meat products whether in the form of fast food burger restaurants or the latest meat product from Tyson. However, you look the other way and you see advertisements promoting vegetarianism and campaigns against animal cruelty and the use of animals for food products. Whether eating meat is ethical or not is one of the most debated topics in the world. Vegetarians are against eating meats and Vegans are against eating any products from animals including eggs and dairy products. They believe that eating meats or animal products is immoral, unethical, and selfish. Campaign groups like PETA fight for the rights of these animals and believe that ultimately all people should stop eating meat. Vegetarians, vegans, and other animal activists believe people should not consume animal products; however, they should reconsider their views because it is a part of our history and traditions, it helps the ecosystem to stay in equilibrium, and animals are harmed in the production of meat alternatives. Although vegetarians, vegans, and other animal activists believe that humans were never meant to eat meat; they should reconsider their views because it is a part of our history and traditions as Americans as well as...
Words: 1035 - Pages: 5
...US produces. Meat animals of the world alone consume food equal to caloric needs of 9 billion people- more than the entire human population on earth. It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat, but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat. A vegetarian food will make ten times as many humans happier than a non-vegetarian one, not counting the happiness gained by animals. Meat eating results in a lot of wastage of food that would otherwise have fed many more people. Ethical Issues Analysis I believe in the ethical treatment for all animals are an ethical obligation by all humans. We have come to an era that we believe that all humans should be treated equally and fairly. Well, what about our other living, breathing counterparts? They deserve to live their life as they choose in quality and in the pursuit of happiness. Just as Europeans came and took over Northern America's land and resources on the Indians. We have also taken over the land and resources from all of the animals. The moral point of view in the killing of animals for food as an indulgence which is not a necessity for our diet is killing another living being. Eating large amount of meat without any vegetarian choice causes constipation, obesity and cancer. The consequences of not eating meat would be healthy diets which keep humans lean without complications of disease. Shocking stories of greed, neglect, and inhumane treatment of animals in the slaughterhouses of the meat industry are enough...
Words: 864 - Pages: 4
...his article presents the review of James Rachels on the basic argument for vegetarianism by Peter Singer. The author develops the Singer’s idea that causing pain is not justified unless there is a sufficiently good reason for it (Rachels 72). Such approach is applicable to vegetarianism and explains why killing animals cannot be justified. Rachel accepts the essence of this idea and states that people should refuse to be the consumers of meat produced on farms and slaughterhouses. The author supports his stance with the point that eating meat for pleasure is not a convincing argument against vegetarianism. Neither is the need to provide the body with certain nutrients, which can be easily substituted with vegetable food. On the other hand,...
Words: 696 - Pages: 3
...Final 1. In James Turner Johnson’s article ‘Threats, values and defense: does the defense of values by force remain a moral possibility?’ (60) he cites four justifications for war. What are they? From a pacifist’s point of view why are these reasons problematic? In this article the four justifications for going to war are: defense of the innocent, recovery of something wrongly taken, punishment of evil, and defense of aggression in progress. From a pacifist's point of view there are some major problems with these justifications for war. Each and every justification is met with its own singular problem. The defense against the innocent seems like it is justified but there arises two arguments against it. In a war more than just soldiers are killed. Other civilians will be killed and many of the soldiers don’t want to fight, they are just ordered too. That means we are killing innocent civilians and soldiers to protect some innocent. From a utilitarian view we must ask if this the death of the innocent will outweigh the death of the other innocent if we do or don’t go to war. Yet, deontologists would say that killing is bad and that needs to be punished because killing is wrong. So kill people to stop killing. For a pacifist that is just wrong. The other problem from defending the innocent is that violence is key in war and many times over we have been shown that violence is not always the best way. We should try and support people and ideas like Gandhi, to win with non-violence...
Words: 2443 - Pages: 10
...is defined as a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, or fowl (Shravan). Not only does vegetarianism help one’s body become healthier, it actually helps society as a whole as well. Becoming a vegetarian is quite straightforward and the health and social benefits can be extremely positive. The need for vegetarians is becoming increasingly crucial because farmers are going out of business everyday. Meat eaters should start taking action and gradually cut meat out of their diets in order to become financially stable and have overall better health. Many people go as far as saying that eating meat is a fundamental liberty and it must be defended. It may be part of the cycle of life, but many vegetarians will argue that it is unethical to kill animals for food when other options such as vegetarianism and veganism are available ("Should people become," 2013). A meat-eater would contend that this is just how nature works; that it has been part of human evolution for 2.3 million years. Vegetarians will counter by stating all warm-blooded animals can feel pain, fear, and stress ("Should people become," 2013). Animals should not have to be slaughtered to fill an unnecessary diet. Many believe that meat is the only or at least the most convenient protein source available. Alternatives foods that one could consume for protein are nuts, and all dairy products. Almost identical to red meat, soy products, such as tofu (a healthy alternative for vegetarians)...
Words: 1474 - Pages: 6
...being called out for it but it is unethical and wrong. Organic produce sellers and growers need to stand up for themselves so that restaurants will stop taking advantage of their...
Words: 767 - Pages: 4
...The Omnivore's Dilemma written by Michael Pollan is a book that helps show how our cultures have changed in choosing what to eat and how how easy we are convinced to change what we eat. The last section of the book called The Forest the author points out the ethical and moral dilemmas and how far we have changed from our ancestors days of hunting and gathering for our meals to buying our meals from supermarkets or fast food restaurants.. The author opens this last section with how he wants to make one last meal with all the elements of this meal are to be hunted and gathered by his own hands and flows the into the topic of how we have changed from not knowing what is and isn't safe to eat and finally into the moral dilemma of eating meat. In the first part, The Forager the author's introduction pulls you in and entices to to keep reading to find out if he was successful in his mission. By using his personal history to explain his lacking experience in hunting and little experience with gathering leaves you hoping that he will ultimately be successful in preparing his meal. The common expectation that the hero or good guy will be successful in his mission is a frequent occurrence in media today. In this case the hero is the author and his quest isn't to save a princess but to be successful in hunting and gathering his own meal that is free from the industrialized food that is around every corner. The author does a great job in flowing between topics with continuing from his...
Words: 675 - Pages: 3
...This section contains a variety of subjects including docking pig's tails, the cruel actions of Smithfield farms, and trying to find a realistic answer of helping animals. It is unrealistic for everyone to become a vegetarian simply for the reason that individuals love meat too much to completely give it up. However, practices like buying meat from local farms where the animals are treated fairly is part of the solution. 2. A good example that supports the writer's opinion is the section that briefly talks about the slaughtering of turkeys after they turn one year old because they do not produce as many eggs. It is more efficient to kill the turkey and start over than keeping the old ones. The writer does use Smithfield again for another example, which is good, but I think it would beneficial to use more sources than just one place where animals were mistreated. 3. If I were to revise the section and provide more details, I would research and list more farm corporations that have mistreated animals, and how they have done so. Also, it would...
Words: 1366 - Pages: 6
