Clearing up “Five Arguments for Vegetarianism” In this paper I will explain and clarify the different arguments for changing to a vegetarian diet that William Stephens discusses in “Five Arguments for Vegetarianism.” His arguments focus on different audiences, but they all come down to caring for oneself, caring for others, or sometimes both. He does specify, however, that these arguments do not apply to fish or “other organisms whose sentience is doubtful” (Pg. 201), nor do they apply to communities that need to hunt to survive. The first argument that Stephens mentions is the argument from distributive justice. This argument states that when one consumes meat from factory farms, one indirectly harms other people, specifically hungry and starving people. For instance, it takes anywhere from 16 to 21 pounds of edible vegetation to produce one pound of beef. When one takes into account the amount of grains and vegetation required to raise beef, pork, and poultry, which could otherwise be used to feed those who are starving it seems pretty obvious how indirectly harmful raising livestock can be for other people, Stephens puts the point as follows: “if Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by only 10 percent for one year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption – or enough to feed 60 million starving people” (Pg. 204). The second argument he makes is the argument from environmental harm. This argument is directed at people who care about the environment, whether for themselves, others, or for the environment itself. It brings up the fact that sheer number of cows, sheep, and goats are very harmful to the environment, either from deforestation to make grazing areas or from methane gases and farm runoff. As Stephens writes, “the argument is that with over a billion cows, bulls, and steers worldwide, the cattle industry is